Would it be possible to tie the renovation of Public Square to a convention center proposal behind Tower City?  Perhaps Forest City could be coerced into making a large investment on the Square as a condition of being rewarded the Convention Center?  Many Conventioners would pass through Public Square on their way to/from conventions.

 

Forest City, in my opinion, has isolated Tower City from the rest of downtown, so there is no positive impact on all of downtown.  Prospect, Huron and Ontario, where they pass through the Tower City development, are streets with a ton of potential, but are currently extremely unfriendly to pedestrians.  Those streets should provide pedestrians with a smooth transition from the WD to Gateway.  Instead, they are intimidating and almost force you inside. 

 

I wish they could be forced to design their projects in a way that would benefit all of downtown, as opposed to just their corner of it.  For example, if they get the CC, the main visitor entrance should be at the intersection of Ontario and Huron, so the project would benefit the Gateway neighborhood as well as Tower City, but I am concerned that no one will hold their feet to the fire on that. 

 

Forest City must have never heard the saying that a rising tide lifts all ships.  It seems like FC has lost faith in its ability to lift all of downtown, and is now concerned with making sure it has the largest slice of an inevitably smaller downtown pie.

Would it be possible to tie the renovation of Public Square to a convention center proposal behind Tower City?  Perhaps Forest City could be coerced into making a large investment on the Square as a condition of being rewarded the Convention Center?  Many Conventioners would pass through Public Square on their way to/from conventions.

 

Forest City, in my opinion, has isolated Tower City from the rest of downtown, so there is no positive impact on all of downtown.  Prospect, Huron and Ontario, where they pass through the Tower City development, are streets with a ton of potential, but are currently extremely unfriendly to pedestrians.  Those streets should provide pedestrians with a smooth transition from the WD to Gateway.  Instead, they are intimidating and almost force you inside.  

 

I wish they could be forced to design their projects in a way that would benefit all of downtown, as opposed to just their corner of it.  For example, if they get the CC, the main visitor entrance should be at the intersection of Ontario and Huron, so the project would benefit the Gateway neighborhood as well as Tower City, but I am concerned that no one will hold their feet to the fire on that. 

 

Forest City must have never heard the saying that a rising tide lifts all ships.  It seems like FC has lost faith in its ability to lift all of downtown, and is now concerned with making sure it has the largest slice of an inevitably smaller downtown pie.

 

I am dead set against the CC at TC.  TowerCity has already sucked the RETAIL life off of the streets into the "mall".  Why should we have to coerce the RATs to help with public square when they have already gotten our tax money and city/state/federal support?!!  They should WANT to help improve the space as it is THEIR front door!

 

THEY HAVEN'T DONE A DAMN THING TO TAKE TOWERCITY TO THE NEXT LEVEL...THEY HAVE LET IS SIT IN MEDIOCRITY FOR ATLEAST THE PAST 6 YEARS.  They've got two fabulous hotels and some wonderful restaurants & Public Transportation running right thru it.  TC - like the rest of Cleveland - has so much potential, but NOT as the home for the CC.  Prospect is a pretty busy street to me, Huron is dead because phase II of Tower City never went up. So the street is off balance and unfriendly.  In addition SW research center has a chunk of land on the riverfront, however, as they are a good cooperate citizen, I have faith that they would relocate to an acceptable space inside the Landmark Office Towers (where their WW HQ is located) or somewhere else in close proximity to HQ.

 

FC has already dropped the ball once.  If the CC is located in TC, it will only suck in more people off the street since they will not have to step outside of TC, therefore other downtown districts (galleria, PHS, CSU, WHD & East Bank, as well as the streets of Euclid, Prospect, Huron, between Ontario and East Ninth AND West third, Sixth, Ninth & 10 (between Superior and St. Clair) wont see any FOOT TRAFFIC TO their area's since nobody will have to go outside of TowerCity.  AGAIN, we have to connect downtown with things at street level. 

 

Using the current center and expanding it north (to potentially connect to CBS), adding the (two ?) hotels and assisting the hotels that said they would renovate/expand, and bring in hotels who have no identity in the NE Market, will help (NOT CURE) downton IN ADDITION to the current residential building that is taking place or planned.  People (resident or tourist) will walk TO and FROM TC, Gateway, NCH, Galleria, FEB & the WHD to the new CC and businesses at street level along the streets can repopulated and infill of NEEDED business for residents should take place. 

 

IMO, FC should develop housing above the the parking area and simultaneously improve the selection of shops in the mall since they would then have a built in residential community to serve/feed the mall.  I do not believe they are interested in improving the mall, the theatres, surrounding streets, duck island or GREATER CLEVELAND IN GENERAL!    In FC's defense, I don't believe they should be responsible for changing downtown (or Cleveland) alone.

Here's my take... If Forest City wants a better convention center (and, for that matter, a non-duplication of multiple public facilities downtown), then link up what we already have by improving Public Square (including all-weather pedestrian linkages). Public Square can and should be the keystone to all that's being considered:

 

* better convention center (best to rebuild what we have than build new behind Tower City while leaving the existing facility vacant)

* pedestrian promenade over the tracks/Shoreway to North Coast Harbor, including a North Coast Transportation Center

* retractable roof over Browns Stadium (privately financed)

* improved Public Square, including an all-weather, traffic-free pedestrian link between Tower City (plus Gateway) and a rebuilt convention center

 

Consider the critical mass that can be unleased by unlocking Public Square. Consider also the wasted space that would result if don't better utilize Public Square, put a convention center behind Tower City and leave Browns Stadium the way it is...

 

* Browns Stadium remains a cold, quiet, white elephant on valuable lakefront land;

* The existing convention center is left to sit vacant and face an uncertain future;

* Public Square remains a windswept, monolithic place only for people to pass through, often in fast-moving vehicles;

* North Coast Harbor stay cut off from downtown, as the only pedestrian linkages are along windy, noisy steet bridges with zero sidewalk life;

* Tower City sits in the corner, isolated from the rest of downtown.

 

To me, Public Square's redesign must be part of a package, including the convention center, North Coast-Downtown promenade and Browns Stadium roof. I hope people see we already have the pearls downtown to make something truly special. We just need to string them together to create more from the sum of those parts. Public Square is the key.

 

^Nicely put.

MTS, I agree that many components are necessary to revitalize downtown. But I think we'd be more successful in pulling them off if we prioritized them and got everyone (downtown business oligarchy and the public) behind them, one by one. Instead of the current, scattershot approach.

I love you too, BTW. ;)

The best thing about the proposal to revitalize PS is that the discussion is actually taking place. That's the first step. I think with all of the projects on board in this town people are getting excited again about where they live-and better yet they are willing to put the ideas out there for discussion. As for the above proposal by Paul Volpe-I think it is an O.K. start, but not a big enough change in my mind. Here is what I would like to see...

-Remove the center streets, period. And tear out the concrete.

-Remove all bus stops and bus traffic and relocate them. Only the BRT will have access to the square itself.

-The streets that go around PS should become one-way. There is just something about traffic    

moving in one direction around a square or circle that brings order and discipline to an area.

-Take the ice skating rink out of the plans. I don't understand the fascination with an skating rink. It takes up too much room for the few people that would use it. I would prefer to see some type of  Winter Garden where people can go to when it's the usual 15 degrees outside.

-Possibly move the S&S monument to the center of the square and build around that.

-Turn the thing over to the Metroparks and let them design and manage it. They would also police it with Metropark Rangers.  

Other than that, wheres my shovel!

To me, the re-thinking of public square is KEY to a complete rebound of downtown.  Jane Jacobs once said, good parks are a city's way of showing it's residents that they are cared for.  Think how many good parks exist in Cleveland...

 

Public Square should be one connected green space as it was at one point during the 1800s.  It needs to be seen as the green link between The Gateway residential community, The Avenue District, and CSU/Playhouse square on the east, and the residential communities of the Warehouse District and Flats to the west.  A good park, linking commuters beteen the two, while attracting those from outside of downtown to a safe, engaging and welcoming environment. 

 

I say go for it all w/ Public Square, then lets turn our attention to the Malls. 

Public Square as it stands, is very upsetting to me and I'm more than delighted to hear that something may finally be done about the barebone feeling that it presents. I think that the Plain Dealer (who did a cover story on this) and the economic study group at CWRU deserve a lot of credit for sending this into hot topic mode. I'm a huge Cleveland fan and love just about every inch of it, but for some odd reason, I find Tower City and PS to be two of the most un-enjoyable places to be in downtown Cleveland. The front doors of TC are nothing more than a massive bus stop. Inside the mall, we have very few stores worth visiting. I like what the subway/rr station beneath USED to be, and can deal with what it is now, but what else does the mall have to offer besides that and two nice hotels? Let's carry this PS revival right into the mall and fix that shithole up as well.. and open the damn observation deck more than once a year. I suppose a mall can survive next door to a lifestyle center (just look at Legacy Village and Beachwood Mall). With that said, Stark's new lifestyle center is key to PS and TC succeeding the future - it will be his project that brings the most people downtown (to shop at, to live at, and to work at) and PS's revitalization will be a nicely added perk.

One more thought:  if you build a city's public spaces to handle more vehicles, that's what you'll get. If you build it for people, you'll get that instead. We need to decide for whom we want Public Square to serve.

 

P.S. Don't say "both" because some compromises end up canceling out the benefits to the other. This is one of those decisions where a decision actually needs to be made!

If you build it for people, you'll get that instead. We need to decide for whom we want Public Square to serve.

P.S. Don't say "both" because some compromises end up canceling out the benefits to the other. This is one of those decisions where a decision actually needs to be made!

 

Yes.  Delightful point.  Automobiles and people do not mix.  3000 pounds and 300 hundred pounds (if you play for the brownies).  Noxious belching and necessary breathing does not mix.  300 pounds walking  at 3 mph does not feel very safe being approached by 3000 pounds at 25 mph.  Not to mention all the space automobiles use up while they sit idle for 90% of the day awaiting use.  that could be parkland or people space.

 

Cars suck space and oxygen and make ugly stuff multiply for eyes, ears, & nose.

 

 

Here are my concerns/comments about the proposal:

1. Changes to the northern quadrant.

My absolute favorite quadrant is the northern one. I like the fountain surrounded by benches, and I think it fits well as the gateway between the civic center and Tower City as a nice public area. That quadrant is also one of the oldest, and best preserved to the orginal design.

 

2. Signage and Connections

I'd prefer no gateway signage over somethy cheap and datey looking.Too often signage in public places fails to convey a dignified sense of place. For example University Circle signage is extremely disappointing. I'd like to see gateway signage tie in some of the more classical elements of the Society Bank street light, the Arcade, and Terminal Tower Lobby. Rounding out the interior corners and installing brick crosswalks seem like a good idea.

 

3. The Amphitheater and Ice Rink

I think it would make more sense to combine the Amphitheater and Ice Rick in the Southern quadrant. It would preserve the Northern quadrant as is, and would be an efficient use of space. The amphitheater events happening in wamer months, and ice skating happening during colder months. The built in seating would still be used year round.

 

4. Kiosks

I think this is needed and would do a lot to actually make the square used. Small places to buy news, coffee, cigarettes, souvenirs, sandwhiches, etc. would be very nice. Something like this is being added to Market Square in Ohio City and some kiosks are being constructed in Crocker Park and it seems like they will have some interesting tenents. Perhaps these two projects could provide some inspiration for Public Square.

 

5. Piazza

Instead of focusing on the edges on the interior of the quadrants for a piazza, I'd like to see this exterior edges of the square be unified through single unified wide walkway lined with kiosks, permanent benches with seating. I would create a tree-lined landsaped buffer between the walkway and the street, or in other words bring the sidewalk in and eliminate the current one all together. I think this would help encourage people to take strolls around the square, and contain the square into a unified space. It is this walkway around the exterior edges that could provide space for farmers markets, christmas markets, and other fair types of things as well

FC should develop housing above the the parking area and simultaneously improve the selection of shops in the mall since they would then have a built in residential community to serve/feed the mall.

 

I agree with you. In fact, the only time I was ever excited about the convention center being built behind TC was when they had renderings of pedestrian access over the river to a developed Scranton peninsula. THAT is where they should focus getting there pedestrian traffic to fule the mall, along with housing above the parking. But they sit on their hands! Hell, I'd be thrilled if I vould get up to the observation deck on the terminal on a regular basis and not just for anniversaries or special occasions.

 

Public Square, with the hopeful coming of the Stark project and (God-willing) a fourth tower to complete the square, will lose its desperate wasteland aesthetic. Personally, I'd say bury all the traffic and return the square to the style of park they had in the 20's. I saw some picture, maybe here, where the square had bridges over water features and was almost a garden. That's the kind of stuff I wish I had a time machine for.

This could be a signature "public/private" project that Mayor Jackson could spearhead.  Mayor Daley in Chicago really pushed for having Millennium park, the one with the big bean sculpture.  But there was next to no tax money spent on it.  It was all financed with corporate sponsors.

I would not have any problem going to an event at the National City ampetheater on Public Square, or skating at the Progressive Insurance Ice rink on Public Square....

Yes but wouldn't Millennium Park be so much cooler if it had two major thoroughfares dicing it up into four little pieces?

here is another take on the square:

 

http://blogonthecity.blogspot.com/2006/06/public-square-is-dead-long-live-public.html

well i dunno, i still like the ice rink in front of tower city, everything else is kinda... "ehh ok"

I was just in Pittsburgh and if Cleveland wants to see what could be done to improve Public Square they should look at Market Square.  It's a great urban space... lots of restaurants, cafes, trees, cobblestone, AND it's open to traffic.

Closing the square off to traffic is a bad idea. However, I would like to see the streets narrowed and re-paved in brick to make them less hostile looking.

Closing the square off to traffic is a bad idea.

 

In public squares, never put traffic over people.

Closing the square off to traffic is a bad idea. However, I would like to see the streets narrowed and re-paved in brick to make them less hostile looking.

 

Can you explain why you feel this is a bad "idea".

Ask Youngstown about the success they had with closing off Federal Street to create "Federal Plaza".

 

The thriving streetlife (two people) are forumers, btw. It was extremely pedestrian friendly and we were able to walk about with lots of ease.

 

 

 

 

It should be noted that Youngstown has since reopened Federal Street to vehicular traffic. I would absolutely support calming the traffic in/near Public Square with lane reductions, etc. I'm not sure an all-out ban on vehicles would be a good thing.

 

 

The traffic in Market Square is limited to one lane North/South and one lane East/West... and it is brick paved.  Open to traffic, yes, friendly to traffic... not quite.  Sweet public space... most definately!

 

 

^One of four quadrants.

The thing about Market Square is that you aren't talking about two major through streets like Ontario and Superior. A comparable scenario in Pittsburgh would be placing Market Square in the center of a hypothetical Liberty Ave. and Grant Ave. intersection. I can assure you it wouldn't be quite so sweet if that were the case.

I think the better lesson from Federal Plaza is that if the space doesn't work, don't be afraid to try and fix it.  Can't see how its failure as a pedestrian space (a very different type of pedestrian space than a unified PS would be) has much bearing on public square.

The connection I think is that if you take a space that is poorly used by pedestrians, and then cut out the cars as well, you end up with a space that feels abandoned, and therefore dangerous. 

 

I've also heard it postulated that most people like to be able to drive to their destination when they aren't familiar with it even if they can't park right there, check it out to see the lay of the land, and then park.

The thing about Market Square is that you aren't talking about two major through streets like Ontario and Superior. A comparable scenario in Pittsburgh would be placing Market Square in the center of a hypothetical Liberty Ave. and Grant Ave. intersection. I can assure you it wouldn't be quite so sweet if that were the case.

 

Well if Public Square is going to be a pedestrian place, something will have to be done about the traffic.  Open it up at rush hour and close it off at other times.  People are not going to want to hang out amidst a torrent of cars.

The connection I think is that if you take a space that is poorly used by pedestrians, and then cut out the cars as well, you end up with a space that feels abandoned, and therefore dangerous. 

 

I've also heard it postulated that most people like to be able to drive to their destination when they aren't familiar with it even if they can't park right there, check it out to see the lay of the land, and then park.

 

Yeah, I know, I understand the basic purported connection, but just don't see the connection here.  No-one is proposing completely removing cars from public square- they would be permitted along it's entire perimeter, in front of all the buildings.  And by diverting them to the edges, motorists would be forced to see more of the square than they see now zooming through the middle. 

 

I just find it very difficult to believe that a unified public square, if properly maintained and provided with amenities, would not be much much much more popular/pleasant than the traffic islands there today.

^why couldn't we just create a traffic circle around the square?  Is there so much traffic passing through the square that a traffic circle isn't feasible?  Eliminating just a few lanes of traffic feels a little like being half-pregnant to me.

^I agree completely; narrowing the lanes would be marginally better, but doesn't really address the main problem (or capture the huge opportunity).

I believe that there will be a push to at least eliminate some lanes from the square. One of the biggest problems will be working through the federal guidelines. The same headaches that elongated the Detroit-Superior bikeway project are in effect for Public Square.  This project would take a lot of creative thinking and a lot of persuasive talking to the different stakeholders.  Before we start to put pencil to paper, we should think about the roles that we want our two large public spaces (Malls and PS) to play in the development of downtown.

The difference between pedestrian prominades (re: Federal Plaza's failure) and Pubilc Square is just that Public Square, in essence, SHOULD be a complete square (with social functions, etc) while Federal Plaza is a commercial district. 

Yikes, I don't like the sound of the federal guidelines.  The DS bridge bikeway was a real nail-bighter.  Hopefully widening the peripheral roadways could be enough to placate the bureaucrats.

 

Good point about discussing the roles of downtown's big public spaces.  I think Public Square really should be the 100% spot of downtown and the region and, accordingly, should be lavished with attention, love and $.  It's a fantastic repository of the many layers of the city's history but should also be the social cross-roads/living room/event space and an urban park.  There's room for it all (fun fact: public square is larger than wade oval).

 

Not sure what do with the Malls other than take photos of beautiful public buildings across them...Dare I say it, I think the group plan was over-scaled and, is thus overrated...

  I have to agree with the idea that streets should be eliminated THROUGH public square.  That area is basically the epicenter of the ctiy and brings both sides of downtown together.  Mall "C" looks nice but is very sterile and isn't really used that much.  North of Mall "C" is ex mayor Jane's idea of a GOOD idea..but it really isn't.  That is a park space close to nothing at all.  It is a waste of space....not close to any major residential areas, most businesses aren't close, and it is too far from the bars for the panhandlers to set up camp....but hey, it's right next to city hall!  At least in about 10 to 15 years the trees will be big enough for the Browns fans to stop and piss on after the game as they pass through from the stadium!

I say make it like a Bryant Park in NYC, or maybe even a Millenium Park in Chitown...

i think public square needs a giant metalic jellybean... or a giant stamp... ya know what i mean... it needs some awesome public art and not any of that "artsy" ornate fencing or arch crap, something on a major installation scale would be great. 

I say close down the streets once in a while on a trial basis.  Try some daytimes, some evenings, some weekends.  Do minor events maybe during lunch hour - stick a few vendors out there, maybe a band or some entertainment - and observe what happens.  Then the planners will have a better idea of where people do or don't gravitate, whether traffic is an issue, etc.

My first impression was to route all through traffic around the square like they do in Philadelphia at Rittenhouse Square.  But then I thought about the way that traffic hits Rittenhouse and it's much different.  The buses may fare well, but the automobile traffic would just be a mess.  Then again, the traffic is only significant during peak hours.  So, now I'm thinking that I like the idea of a rush hour "through" rule and an off-peak "around" rule.  It's not like there aren't enough alternatives for people who want to zip through Downtown.  Just move an avenue north or south or a street east or west and you won't have to deal with Public Square traffic at all!

 

And for the buses, I think this could be an opportunity to make the whole Downtown transit hub more easy to navigate and understand.  Maybe they could even find a spot to post a bus map and a scedule or two!

I'm with MGD on this one.  Lay some brick down on the streets, and only allow traffic at peak time.

What's with all the timidness about blocking traffic?  The day downtown's traffic is "a mess" by objective, non-Cleveland standards is the day those condo-tower seeds I planted 3 years ago in parking lots start sprouting (if only).  Our streets are a million lanes wide and spread in every direction; people could adjust to this change.  OK, I guess I could live with some trial runs like Oompa suggests, but I suspect steaming asphalt streets on a hot summer day aren't too tempting to hang out on even if the traffic is diverted.  I'd hate to see the whole idea killed because some half-assed experiment proved unsuccessful.

after smelling the strong urine again this morning walking through the NE quadrant - even after crazy rains last night...and why isn't the fountain on?  it is the middle of June, not January...

 

I think 3 or 4 of these are in order.  Put one on public square, one in star plaza, one by rock hall/voinovich park, one near settlers landing, one in wade circle, etc.   Use the OneCommunity network to monitor their status, equip them with security cameras, whatever...

 

 

Here is a description from SF website:

http://www.sfgov.org/site/sfdpw_page.asp?id=32434

 

The Automatic Public Toilet Program was developed because of a growing civic concern about the lack of sufficient public toilet facilities in the City. The toilets cost a quarter to operate, are designed to automatically clean themselves after each use, and are fully accessible to people with disabilities. Free tokens distributed by various non-profit organizations are given to those that cannot afford the 25 cents entry fee. This program is operated at no cost to the City. In exchange for the toilets, the City allows the contractor to install public service/advertising kiosks on City sidewalks. Advertising revenue generated by the kiosks pays for the installation and maintenance of the toilets. Click here for a list of Self-Cleaning Public Pay Toilet Locations.

A unified square would have room for plenty of these nifty things.

Here's another beauty by Roldo.  He is getting more and more inaccurate:

 

RoldoLINK

Shallow Plan For Public Square

By Roldo Bartimole

 

 

“The square is a ‘sleeping giant,’ according to downtown Councilman Joe Cimperman.” So writes the Plain Dealer in an article entitled “Civic leaders envision revitalized Public Square.”

 

 

Cimperman has gone from a promising, bright, young and aggressive freshman Councilman to a sadly predictable politician. He lacks even the possible charm of a charlatan. It’s not all his fault. Reporters look for quotes to fit a need and Cimperman’s too accommodating.

 

 

The Public Square article represents a model example of how certain people and interests get their personal agendas before the public. Their pitch may have little relevance in the extensive list of public need. Its only distinction regards its proponents’ mostly self-interested desires.

 

 

When a politician makes such a trite remark as Cimperman did, you know the bullshit is already knee high. Check your wading pants if you are going downtown.

 

 

The article tries to hit every civic responsibility button imaginable to sell its bill of goods. Please check your wallet pocket and pocketbooks.

 

 

Not until the final couple of 39 paragraphs (and 90 inches of space, including photo and drawing), does some reality find life in the piece by Tom Breckenridge. (I don’t blame the reporter as much as the editors who assigned and allowed this pie-in-the-sky reportage to find public exposure.)

 

 

Near the end of the drawn out propaganda piece we learn that even City Planning Commission chair Tony Coyne – typically eager to support downtown corporate interests – cautioned about the city’s tight budget. County Commissioner Peter Lawson Jones, who also typically jumps aboard such civic propelled yearnings, also hit a bit skeptical tone.

 

 

However, the rest of the article smacks of a press release that should have been discarded on its way into the PD offices. News is not supposed to be someone’s PR dreaming.

 

 

That’s, however, what we get.

 

 

The project is described as making Public Square “hipper.”

 

 

Can you use a more un-chic phrase as “a hipper square?” That’s how this yearning is described. Someone is really reaching for superlatives to dress up a dog.

 

 

The article says, “A band of civic leaders says it is time to push for retail, dining and entertainment amenities that would make the square a destination.”

 

 

The names of proponents, however, indicate not “a band of civic leaders,” but a few of the same downtown trick artists: Ann Zoller, described as an “urban-park specialist, who once headed up ParkWorks, a worthy operation;” architect-developer Paul Volpe; and Joe Marinucci of the Downtown Partnership. These are people with a self-interest attached to their businesses and occupations.

 

 

The selling job is painful.

 

 

Zoller goes so far as to say in favor of redevelopment of Public Square, “You get people into public spaces, and the (homeless) problem takes care of itself.” Do they disappear into thin air, Zoller?

 

 

When you get that desperate for reasoning to do something, you apparently are into selling ice to Eskimos.

 

 

“A reconstructed square would generate nearly 4 million more visits a year, a 50 percent increase in use, the survey said. If every visitor spent just $5 at new businesses on the square that would spin an extra $20 million yearly into the downtown economy,” the article says.

 

 

How many times can you sell something tired downtown by claiming a doubling of visitors and millions of dollars in added revenue?

 

 

Please. This comes, it says, from a “study” of Case economics students. I’m told these were papers for credit by students. However, e-mails to the economics professor in charge for copies went unanswered. He may be on vacation, I’m told.

 

 

It also stated, “Residents would tolerate a county-wide tax of $10 a year, generating $5 million.” Well that’s easier said than done.

 

 

Volpe wants to be the big cheese for the project. Volpe is quoted saying, “We could do astounding things.” Public Square could be the “next big project,” he says.

 

 

He wants some $40 million in public investment.

 

 

What is Volpe proposing?

 

 

He suggests (remember on public land) retail business, a restaurant, ice rink and amphitheater. Does Volpe understand that Public Square sits in front of Tower City, which cannot keep its retail alive? We sure need to spend tax dollars for a restaurant to compete with all the downtown restaurants we already have. Another amphitheater? We have two in the Flats. Should we use public money to subsidize competition to them?

 

 

Does all this belong on public land, or as the article grandly calls it, “the iconic, nine-acre heart of downtown?”

 

 

Who is trying to fool whom with this?

 

 

Sounds to me as though Volpe wants another subsidized job.

 

 

Breckenridge - and the proponents - unfortunately, try to cover every possible base in the sales pitch.

 

 

Joe Marinucci of the Cleveland Downtown Partnership classically finds this exciting. That’s why he’s paid so well, $204,000 with some $18,000 in benefits and expenses in 2004. He worries about the lack of safety in the Square. So he proposes (with Cuyahoga County paying half of $300,000) “clean and safety patrols.”

 

 

“The ‘clean and safety’ program soon will hire a licensed social worker who will work to get homeless people off the streets. To discourage begging, the alliance will ask people to give to social service agencies rather than panhandlers, says Marinucci,” according to the article.

 

 

Now there is progress on the homeless program. Give your spare change to United Way.

 

 

A few years ago, the Plain Dealer tried to hold developers somewhat in check by demanding that assurance of financing accompany their grand announcements. Apparently, this policy is now kaput.

 

 

When you sell – and that’s what the PD is doing – these projects that may never come to fruition you simply undermine public confidence in the city’s ability to produce what it says it will do. When things do not happen though they get a big push off in the paper it damages people’s confidence.

 

What the Plain Dealer should be pushing around Public Square at this time is for Dick Jacobs to build the promised structures where the parking lot on the west side has sat unproductively for the last 15 years.

 

While Roldo is dead on with the last paragraph, the rest of the article is crap.  He makes so many assumptions in this article and presents them as fact. 

 

By the way, Tony Coyne was pretty upset because his quote was completely taken out of context.

 

 

Good thing no one pays attention to him anymore.

Roldo's only idea is to force the development of the parking lot on the west side of the square?

 

Yeah, I'd love to see Jacob's build on that lot, but we can't exactly force someone to build a skyscraper.  Roldo's a dumbass.

^amen...

The theory I have developed regarding Public Square or any "public square" for that matter is that it doesn't really matter too much what is inside the square, rather than what is around its perimeter. First of all - you take any famous town Square in Europe and you will find that it is essentially just a large flat paved (or rather cobblestone) surface. There is hardly any landscaping, greenspace, amphitheaters, decoration, signage, etc. What makes European squares so great and vibrant are the buildings and pedestrian activity around the perimeter. Brussel's Grand Platz, Madrid's Plaza Mayor, or San Marco's in Venice are just a few examples that come to mind. Second of all - permanently closing a square off from automobile traffic doesn't exactly make it more vibrant. There are instances where squares open to traffic do just fine. People don't seem to avoid Times Square just because automobile traffic cuts through it.

 

I'm not opposed to making some of the proposed changes to Public Square, but some of the arguements for these changes I find flawed. You won't get people to just go hang around in Public Square by making all these changes. When the surrounding buildings and adjacent districts to Public Square improve; so will use and enjoyment of Public Square.

 

By the way, the shutting down of Ontario avenue in Public Square today revealed such a traffic calamity that it was ever permanently closed, then I doubt it could be tolerated on a year-round basis.

The theory I have developed regarding Public Square or any "public square" for that matter is that it doesn't really matter too much what is inside the square, rather than what is around its perimeter.

 

An excellent point

Vulp, I think you might be on to something with regards to amphitheaters, etc., but don't think any of Plaza Mayor, Grand Platz and Pza. San Marco are quadrisected by 6 lane roads.  Or even surrounded by busy roads for that matter.  And check out Boston's Government Plaza for one bad example of taking the European model too far (I'm not suggesting that is what you want but it is an interesting object lesson that Bostonians have been trying to change for years).

 

Yes, if Downtown's population exploded and retail cam flooding back to Euclid public square would be better used but not sure it would be a better space.

 

As for Time Squares, I don't know a single person, not one, who lives in NYC and thinks Times Square is anything but a tourist clogged hell-hole to be avoided at all costs.  This is not a knock on tourists- Times Square is a fascinating spectacle...but not something to emulate.

I hung out in PSquare a little this week, and I think the biggest problem with it is all those streets make it incoherent. When you are on foot, you can't tell that there are four different portions of this place with their own flavor. Those streets break up it up too much. Forget adding the ampitheater and the rolleycosters or whatever (lol) and just work on those streets. It kills the whole vibe.

 

I do agree with the above, though. More development/business around it would help a lot. Walking by tonight in the dark, I was able to peek inside a bunch of buildings. There is one near the square on Euclid that has paintings hanging neatly inside, which looks nice during the day. At night, you can see the whole place inside is gutted. That was a little horrifying. And the Higby and May Company buildings bum me out because they are so cool. C'est la vie.

 

 

^ yea May Co is completely gutted, i been inside it, theres even small holes in the floor where you can see the basement

^^Vulpster, you couldn't be more dead-on in your assessment, and why I'm lukewarm to all this (PD-spurred) Public Square redevelopment talk: a public sq in itself doesn't draw people, it's what's going on around it.  THAT'S WHERE THE FOCUS SHOULD BE.  And you're also right about gaining instant insight/ a snapshot of a closed Ontario/southern Sq. half would be like: did you note the crush of traffic forced onto Prospect?  What a mess, particularly before/after those Indians-Yankees games... As I've said, elsewhere, if your going to talk about closing those arteries -- esp in the east-west, you either had better: a) beef up current Rapid service (including routing more buses into outer stations, and/or b) revisit the subject of an east-west subway through the Square, which could potentially eliminate all bus traffic through the area.