Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest punch

Cleveland: Global Center for Health Innovation & Convention Center

Recommended Posts

Are the Convention Center and the Medical Mart necessarily tied together?  The price of the Convention Center seems to be out of reach at the moment.  Can we get the Medical Mart in place now, and delay the Convention Center while we seek additional ways to fund it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are the Convention Center and the Medical Mart necessarily tied together? The price of the Convention Center seems to be out of reach at the moment. Can we get the Medical Mart in place now, and delay the Convention Center while we seek additional ways to fund it?

 

Yes, they are contractually tied together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is Crain's staff editorial (the publication's official position) on the convention center site selection......

 

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20080825/SUB1/151512/1074/newsletter02

 

Not so fast

4:30 am, August 25, 2008

 

Excuse us if we don't automatically buy into the argument that a riverfront site at Tower City Center is the best, or for that matter the least expensive, option for the creation of a convention center and medical merchandise mart in downtown Cleveland.

 

It's not that we flunked math in high school. The numbers presented by the committee charged with selecting the site for the long-discussed convention center and sidekick medical mart project are quite clear: It would cost an estimated $536 million to develop the duo at Tower City, while the price of replacing the antiquated convention center on Cleveland's Mall with a new one accompanied by a medical mart would total $583 million.

 

That's a $47 million difference in favor of the Tower City location.

 

But what becomes of the current convention center and the attached Public Hall if Tower City is the home of the new convention center?

 

Unless the old structures are used each Halloween as “The Biggest Haunted House in the World,” there likely will be a substantial cost to redevelop the properties for new uses. And it isn't unthinkable that the cost — which probably would be assumed in whole or in part by taxpayers under the guise of state grants and tax breaks — could exceed by far the $47 million “savings” of choosing the Tower City site.

 

We're also not convinced that a convention center at Tower City would be better for downtown as a whole than a meeting hall at the Mall.

 

We can foresee too many convention-goers flying into Hopkins airport, jumping on the Red Line rapid transit train that connects to Tower City, holing up in the Tower City complex for much of their stay and jumping back on the train to catch a flight home.

 

Thanks for visiting Cleveland, folks.

 

Conventions are supposed to put out-of-towners on the streets so that they spend their money at the restaurants, nightclubs, theaters and attractions that populate downtown. We believe the central location afforded by the Mall would generate a greater volume of such street traffic than Tower City (and don't talk to us about creating above-ground covered walkways to get people from Tower City to other parts of downtown — how absurd).

 

If the taxpayers of Cuyahoga County are going to foot most of a half-billion dollar bill — without their direct approval, mind you — for creating the convention center/medical mart complex, then they darn well better get their money's worth.

 

It isn't as though they haven't seen mass quantities of public money wasted before for projects that civic leaders thought were swell. Look no further than the $60 million Waterfront Line, the transit train running through the Flats that was a Cleveland Bicentennial project. It runs most days essentially riderless, and occupies prime riverfront property that could have been put to much better use.

 

Now comes a project 10 times the cost of the Waterfront Line. It must yield the maximum bang for those bucks. Otherwise, it will go down as the biggest waste of public money in the history of Northeast Ohio.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that we don't have beaucoup extra monies in this town to spend on development brought home the fact to me that the existing Conv. Ctr needed to be the final location. So I agree with the Crain's assessment on that score specifically. And a lot of us have been saying that the Tower City location could keep conventioneers underground for their entire stay. They might venture over to some of the restaurants in the Warehouse District, I will say that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want the CC to stay where it is but do we honestly think the conventioneers will stay in the TC complex, eat solely at the few restaurants, and not wander around the city at all?  As sh*tty as people think Cleveland may be, I would like to think that people may be curious to walk around, ESPECIALLY as the new developments bring revamped streetscapes and new retail/restaurants--not to mention the stadia and North Coast Harbor.  In February, maybe a few more people may stay indoors but we can't act like we're the only city that has harsh winters and a convention center.  I think it's more naive to believe people's first and last breath of Cleveland air will be at Hopkins.  To think that the demise of E. 4th/WHD will be the fault of a TC CC is ridiculous. 

 

I want the CC to stay at the malls because of the great opportunities that exist to develop a great space at the heart of the city.  Creating a dense/active downtown around the malls with better connections to NCH. 

 

I also don't buy the "waterfront wasting valuable waterfront property" bit either!  What are those other unused acres doing?  :roll:  That was a very ignorant-PD-ish bash on the waterfront line. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with most everything in the article except the comments on the Waterfront line too. I think of the Waterfront line as big wasted opportunity rather than wasted money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with most everything in the article except the comments on the Waterfront line too. I think of the Waterfront line as big wasted opportunity rather than wasted money.

 

Or may it is just about 14 years before its time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and don't talk to us about creating above-ground covered walkways to get people from Tower City to other parts of downtown — how absurd

 

hehehe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with most everything in the article except the comments on the Waterfront line too. I think of the Waterfront line as big wasted opportunity rather than wasted money.

 

Or may it is just about 14 years before its time. 

 

14 years of wasted opportunity, that's what I meant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great editorial, I couldn't have said it better myself.  I think it is important that we keep up the pressure on the commissioners.  The official decision isn't made yet, though I do think the report was written to give them cover on the decision they want to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tower City may indeed be cheaper, however it will also collect less revenue.  Forest City will collect all parking revenues at Tower City.  The taxpayers would collect the revenue from parking at the Mall site.  Parking revenues can easily add up to several million per year.  Only some folks will be coming to town via the Rapid/Hopkins.  Millions more will be driving.  The parking revenues are going to account for far more cash for FCE than the additional revenues they reap from their mall.  I hope that somebody in the media picks up on this. FCE wants $40 million for the air rights to build above their land and they want to build their own additional parking garages underneath the convention center.  That is a poor deal for the county.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats an excellent idea is to tack on expected future and potential revenues.  There's not too much additional revenue going to the county if they throw everything to Forest City with the Medical Mart running the show.  Including opportunity cost also helps tilt things towards the Malls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great editorial, I couldn't have said it better myself.  I think it is important that we keep up the pressure on the commissioners.  The official decision isn't made yet, though I do think the report was written to give them cover on the decision they want to make.

 

I wish people would think first before they buy, lock, stock and barrel, an opinion that supports where they happen to want the convention center to be built: the Mall.  That's especially true when Crain's makes thoroughly dumb, overkill comments like:

 

It isn't as though they haven't seen mass quantities of public money wasted before for projects that civic leaders thought were swell. Look no further than the $60 million Waterfront Line, the transit train running through the Flats that was a Cleveland Bicentennial project. It runs most days essentially riderless, and occupies prime riverfront property that could have been put to much better use.

 

:drunk:

 

Hmm, so let's see, we should tear up the Waterfront line because it's on prime land – Browns Stadium isn’t, but the WFL is…  Guess Crain’s never heard of urban building concepts like TOD, similar to the $500M project Wolstein's developing on FEB around the WFL -- but why mess up a good story with facts, huh?  Guess this makes sense if you realize Crain's anti-transit history of opposing the very worthwhile Dual Hub subway/light rail in favor of ECP b/c it is (allegedly) cheaper (though obviously less effective) and touting the greatness of Joe Calabrese mainly because he's anti rail.

 

But that aside, the gist of this piece is highly debatable if not totally ridiculous: we should rebuild on the near-90 year old site simply because, well, it's there; and so, the $47M cost advantage discovered by the Site Selection Committee (SSC) after months of number crunching should be X’d out b/c no one has factored in the opportunity and holding costs of maintaining that big, beautiful Italian Renaissance fortress on E. 6th & Lakeside as a crumbling, empty white elephant?  (and, oh yeah, I guess the report of water table ground water hampering deeper conv. center underground digging -- to support contemporary exhibits not envisioned when it opened decades ago at the Mall  -- is a lie … probably something the SSC concocted given that they’re so deep in the Ratner’s pocket to see the light of day, I s’pose)… Fact is, nobody (esp me) wants to see beautiful old Public Hall go to waste, but to simply act like it's impossible to retrofit this building for other uses is a self-serving ploy for Mall backers.  There have been several proposals – are the MM/cc Mall backers here to tell us they are all knowing and each one of those proposals are garbage????

 

And it's beyond ridiculous to knock the Tower City site because it would afford Rapid riders an indoor connection against inclement weather.  Hello!  Just because people would rather not schlep luggage outside as they arrive and leave as some (not all or even most) would afford themselves of this prime asset the City has called the Airport Rapid Transit, how does it necessarily follow that the majority would tend to want to dwell underground like moles their entire stay and then race to hop the next Rapid to the plane out of town as soon as their conference wraps.  So here’s the deal: let’s move the facility away from all existing built up entertainment/retail nodes of activity simply so we’ll force these Cleveland-hating conventioneers to walk outside and, perhaps maybe, even enjoy the City… Now that’s a real positive way of looking at your town… Because people may come & go to conventions via Rapid trains (or maybe, via enclosed taxi stands as the original Terminal Tower/Union Station had, does it follow they’re going to stay indoors and simply ‘escape’ to the airport and leave?  Did Crain’s conduct some kind of study, formal or informal supporting this premise?  And if conventioneers, en masse, behaved this way towards Cleveland, doncha kinda-sorta think maybe WE collectively would have to have dropped the ball in selling what growth and excitement is and will be downtown Cleveland?

 

Funny how despite having really nothing much more than an national, annual car race going for it along with one of the largest convention complexes in the country, Indianapolis – a smaller, boring Midwestern hick-ish town that Clevelander’s should view in the rear-view mirror -- has been able to feed off ITS cc’s synergy and boost downtown Indy as this exciting and vibrant place – in reality more vibrant than Cleveland’s, at least at the moment.  And, yep, Indy’s convention Center is tied in directly (meaning indoor connections) to a huge shopping mall and its 20,000+seat sports arena, all adjacent to Monument Circle, which is comparable to Public Square.

 

But no, this kinda thing can never happen in Cleveland… right?  But when you hate mass transit as that dreadful tool of the proletariat as much as Crain’s obviously does then, well, such bass-ackwards thinking – that rail transit is a curse not a blessing -- is not surprising.  And I don’t know what to make of that weird comment about some unstated TC zeal to build ugly covered walkways to connect buildings to keep people warm – I guess – never mind that Tower City is already interconnected.  But no, we’re talking about moles and not people, right, so they’ll never come up from Tower City’s bowels to sniff the fresh air, right?

 

Just goes to show how UOers, and I’m sure others, will latch onto any point of view regardless of how ridiculous simply if, in the end, it’s end point happens to mesh with theirs…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you missed Crain's editorial from the previous week, clvlndr.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also agree with Clvlndr.  I think the TC site could yield a very unique and effective CC in Cleveland.  I'm really looking forward to the renderings of this facility.  As long as it's done right it could really be something special.

 

As for Public Hall going to waste I don't think this would be the case.  Would this building not be the perfect fit for a museum similar to the Field Museum in Chicago?  I'm not really familiar with the way museums are created/moved... but how difficult would it be to create a museum at the site or move one there?  What are the options if any?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KJP asked I bring this post over from a different forum subject.

The Medical Mart is another project that has been in planning a long time.

In 1981 the City of Cleveland was to purchase, for 2.25 mil, what is now MK Ferguson Plaza and turn it over to Forest City to develop a Medical Mart..

Forest city had just purchased Union Terminal property in 1980 for 8.5 mil.

The Federal Government added 3.2 mil for road/bridge repair in 1982. This was to help overcome the dispute resulting from the City of Cleveland Ordinance of 1919 which laid out a framework of who was responsible for the maintenance of the roads/bridges and utilities that are over the Terminal Tower complex.

The book, Cleveland’s Towering Treasure, A Landmark Turns 75, has a site plan with the medical mart labeled in what is now MK Ferguson Plaza.

Forest City was unable to lease the property and that part of the Tower City Development ended in 1984.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clvndr- As usual, you're over the top histrionics undermine your points.  Crain's never said to rip up the WFL, they said it is underused and occupies prime land, both factually correct, though they aren't looking at the long view.  Meanwhile, Wolstein is developing around it, but still he seems to have little interest in it.  He has never promoted his development as TOD, though it will be transit accessible.  All of this is of course besided the main point of the article, which is the CC/MM.

 

Whatever they do in the study, the $47 million cost advantage likely will be X'd out in reality because of the holding and redevelopment costs of the current CC and Public Hall.  That cost is real.  Are you trying to say it isn't?  The current study included the cost of water table issues already.  I don't get what you're point was there. 

 

And what are these redevelopment plans you claim we are calling garbage?  I've seen none for Public Hall, and only a vague idea that maybe the CC could be used for a soundstage.

 

Why are we concerned about people zipping into Cleveland and never setting foot outside if the TC site is chosen?  Because that is what is being sold as the main benefit of the TC site- it's all right there, no need to ever leave the complex.  Not only that, but they want to connect half the city with a series of hamster tubes (or maybe mole holes).  I don't fathom how the intend to actually implement that, but any way it happens it is an urban planning nightmare.  The biggest complaint I hear from people coming Downtown is that there is no one out on the street.  This thing will be a street life killer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you missed Crain's editorial from the previous week, clvlndr.

 

I did; update me, please. ... I used to subscribe to Crain's b/c I liked their pro-downtown growth angle... But it seemed, esp during Jane Campbell's term, to really drift too far to the right in editorials and seemed more political than urban growth, so I dropped it.  It's a good local urban mag, but annoying at times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clvndr- As usual, you're over the top histrionics undermine your points.  Crain's never said to rip up the WFL, they said it is underused and occupies prime land, both factually correct, though they aren't looking at the long view.  Meanwhile, Wolstein is developing around it, but still he seems to have little interest in it.  He has never promoted his development as TOD, though it will be transit accessible.  All of this is of course besided the main point of the article, which is the CC/MM.

 

Whatever they do in the study, the $47 million cost advantage likely will be X'd out in reality because of the holding and redevelopment costs of the current CC and Public Hall.  That cost is real.  Are you trying to say it isn't?  The current study included the cost of water table issues already.  I don't get what you're point was there. 

 

And what are these redevelopment plans you claim we are calling garbage?  I've seen none for Public Hall, and only a vague idea that maybe the CC could be used for a soundstage.

 

Why are we concerned about people zipping into Cleveland and never setting foot outside if the TC site is chosen?  Because that is what is being sold as the main benefit of the TC site- it's all right there, no need to ever leave the complex.  Not only that, but they want to connect half the city with a series of hamster tubes (or maybe mole holes).  I don't fathom how the intend to actually implement that, but any way it happens it is an urban planning nightmare.  The biggest complaint I hear from people coming Downtown is that there is no one out on the street.  This thing will be a street life killer.

 

Point 1 -- rail transit doesn't occupy prime land, it has an easement through it and if one has an understanding of rail, they realize it can and should enhance land value rather than detract from it.  Crain's acts as though WFL's tracks & wires only serve to ugli-fy our waterfront rather than serving as a valuable tool for egress/ingress... Crain's isn't advocating, directly anyway, closing down the WFL, but it's obvious they wouldn't mind seeing it ended, totally are oblivious to its advantages and, clearly, are saying it never should have been built.  And if that's the mentality they have, it's a pretty safe bet they would use their considerable voice to advocate against any future rail transit here... I think, X, that's pretty obvious, wouldn't you think?

 

Point 2.  X you missed my point entirely and you mischaracterize TC advocates' angle viz the Rapid -- it's a tool to get conventioneers too/from the airport to the TC Conv center and hotels...  The never setting foot outside is to-from Cleveland transportation.  Yeah, there's convenience of having TC's food court there, but I’m in total agreement with the worst Ratner haters that Tower City's venue is currently extremely limited.  Presentations and comments touted TC’s advantages indeed also stemmed from the fact that, once here and settled, TC's site at the center of town and the attached, existing hotels puts visitors closer to nerve centers at Gateway and the Warehouse District.  I stand behind my view that we're a pretty sad-sac city if we allow conventioneers to be moles -- which by the way, shrinks will tell you is antithetical to human beings -- and allow them to be shuttered away from all downtown Cleveland has to offer, now and in the future... Like I said, Indy hasn't let that happen to its downtown despite having a CC setup that parallels what we're projecting for Tower City...

 

Point 3 (see Point 2), beautiful Beaux Arts Public Hall will fail only if we let it fail for it need not if we're innovative and aggressive -- 2 adjectives that, admittedly, don't mix well with Cleveland public officials, historically.

 

Point 4 – This idea of a TC MM/CC creating “hamsters” in tubes or, whatever, is parallel to the  tired old, pathetic argument that Tower City “killed downtown” by allegedly “sucking people off streets.”  For one thing, maybe if people had gotten off their asses and really supported a downtown subway up Euclid, maybe there’s be great (D.C. Metro-like vehicle to spread people conveniently around downtown, but nooooo… Besides that, once again our passive, myopic approach to our city (the opposite of innovative and aggressive, wouldn’t you say?) got our downtown in the fix its in.  We nary lifted a finger when our great shopping strip along lower Euclid went down the toilet and, suddenly, started pointing fingers at Tower City (oh, does this city love the BLAME GAME) as being the culprit.  But in case you’ve noticed, the Rapid and Tower City (and it’s predecessor) have been in place for well over a half century – along with Higbee’s, our dazzling main dept store attached to it -- so why, suddenly, did Tower City of 1989 kill it, and why would the new Conv Center to be located there, keep on killing it?  Your argument X is totally self serving…  It took the Maron family and other developers to re-teach Clevelanders that people can and want to come up for air and venture outside to enjoy life away from Public Sq.  So what makes Clevelanders, who are basking in E. 4th Street and WHD success, any more different than conventioneers who, chances are, will be itching to hunt down a good time after their program is over for the day?  In fact, this latter group will be more inclined to do so more b/c Cleveland will (often) be new and different to them as opposed to (too many) stay in my suburb/neighborhood and go to the mall, Clevelanders – some of whom still brag about not coming downtown for years…

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if people had gotten off their asses and really supported a downtown subway up Euclid

 

if people had gotten off their asses and really supported a downtown subway up Euclid

 

if people had gotten off their asses and really supported a downtown subway up Euclid

 

if people had gotten off their asses and really supported a downtown subway up Euclid

 

Oh for cryin' out loud already :roll:

deadhorse.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry math, the former journalist often gets the best of me...

 

and it's the reference librarian in me that wants you to present your ideas in easy to read, bite-sized, posts.  consider editing yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Just goes to show how UOers, and I’m sure others, will latch onto any point of view regardless of how ridiculous simply if, in the end, it’s end point happens to mesh with theirs…"

 

And it's the Admin in me that doesn't care to see smug @sshole remarks like the above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did; update me, please. ... I used to subscribe to Crain's b/c I liked their pro-downtown growth angle... But it seemed, esp during Jane Campbell's term, to really drift too far to the right in editorials and seemed more political than urban growth, so I dropped it. It's a good local urban mag, but annoying at times.

 

They had a very pro transit editorial in it.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also applaud the Crain's editorial (thanks for posting KJP). The comments made about the WFL did come across as a little negative but as X mentioned they were not entirely innaccurate.

 

Clvlndr you seem to suggest that this editorial by Crain's is self serving but I'm not sure from your comments what Crain's has to gain by the county choosing the mall site.

 

Pete that is an excellent point about parking revenues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point 1- I agree with you on transit, I disagree that one paragraph in an editorial means that Crain's is forevermore opposed to all rail transit.  That's a pretty big overreaction to pretty scant evidence.

 

Point 2- Make your point concisely, and perhaps I won't miss it inside a dense and convoluted rant. At any rate, I think I did address your point, and fairly.  Certainly some conventioneers will want to get out and explore, but we are really doing all in our power to let them not do so- ask your shrinks about "paths of least resistance".  The issue of proximity to Gateway and the Warehouse District has already been settled, several times.  I'm not getting into that again.

 

Point 3- "Innovative and aggressive" is nice to say.  Now where's the plan?  How much will it cost?  Who pays?

 

Point 4- Isn't this in essence point 2 restated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if people had gotten off their asses and really supported a downtown subway up Euclid

 

if people had gotten off their asses and really supported a downtown subway up Euclid

 

if people had gotten off their asses and really supported a downtown subway up Euclid

 

if people had gotten off their asses and really supported a downtown subway up Euclid

 

Oh for cryin' out loud already :roll:

deadhorse.jpg

 

... give me your club MayDay, so I can beat it ONE MORE TIME...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did; update me, please. ... I used to subscribe to Crain's b/c I liked their pro-downtown growth angle... But it seemed, esp during Jane Campbell's term, to really drift too far to the right in editorials and seemed more political than urban growth, so I dropped it. It's a good local urban mag, but annoying at times.

 

They had a very pro transit editorial in it.

 

Really? ... would love to see it.  I've gotten the sense they are excactly the opposite given some of their past stances...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so clvndr may have repeated some things, paraphrased/editorialized some thoughts, used rhetoric but if we really look at what he/she is trying to say, I think he/she has some very valid points.

 

Point 1.  If anyone in the PD dared to mention the wasteful nature of the WFL, we would have built a guillotine on the southwest quadrant of Public Square.  It's not wasted $$$, it's wasted opportunities by those few, privelaged individuals capable of instantly provoking some sort of change in the city.  Unless they think a meandering, narrow apartment complex could have occupied the WFL rails, a "better use" for land is as rhetorical as the "aggressive and innovative" attitude towards reprogramming the current CC for which clvndr was criticized unfairly.

 

Point 2.  Yeah, conceivably one could never step foot outside in Cleveland-unless their gate at CLE doesn't have a jetway.  Let's be fair and demand hard facts for the way in which a convention center-with the coveted MEDICAL MART-located in a major downtown, accessible to/from an intl'l airport via rapid transit spells the demise for a city with an envied dining scene, up and coming retail tenants, world renown cultural and recreational institutions and attractions...Are there any?

 

We're assuming that the vast majority of people-a majority in which the minority will have no effect on the growth/economic development of downtown CLE-will choose remain inside the TC complex-whether it's a one day conference or 1 week conference. 

 

We're assuming that the shopping amenities will suffice in that there will be no need for other options on downtown's streets.  Yes ,that means that I will NEVER be able to shop along Euclid or in the WHD unless I want a pair of jeans with a dragon on the @ss or a rhinestone encrusted pimp chalice. 

 

We're assuming that we won't market all of the things Cleveland/NEO has to offer and that anything conventioneers used to do in CLE, such an influx of visitors will actually hurt our city instead of extending our network throughout the US/World--that's the benefits-long term and/or short term-of thousands of additional people spending time in Cleveland with Clevelanders.

 

We're also assuming that any progress we've seen regarding downtown development will stop.  If we're so stubborn/naive to think that a MM in the wrong place is worse than our "inadequate" convention center without a MM, than our momentum as a city/region in reclaiming the city center should be independent of any outside or BONUS forces such as conventions and more tourists.

 

3.  Come on Clvndr, where are you renderings, site plans, hard numbers?  :roll:  Who on this website has room to talk about posing rhetorical/theoretical/ideological questions/statements with solid, physical material backing up his/her idea?  Yes, if/when the current convention center is vacated, we need "make lemonade from our lemons"!  Let's see, we've brainstormed about that before--aquarium, natatorium, Guggenheim-CLE, Louvre-CLE, IKEA, multimodal station, movie-production spaces...We could go on and on to the point of redundant/irrelevant jibberish-hey, I'm probably approaching that point right now...

 

"Innovative and aggressive"  Yes those are cute, poweful words.  Let's leave it at that and not demand some thesis from clvndr for hoping we-as UOers or NEOers-take full advantage of reprogramming one of America's most under-appreciated and least utilized civic spaces.

 

Again, I'm all for keeping the convention center where it is and redeveloping the Group Plan.  I think it's the best solution that offers the most potential for the city of Cleveland to grow.  But, if the TC site is inevitable, why not try to look at the bright side of things?  What do we stand to gain?  What spin-off development opportunities may happen?  Hell, conventions in Cleveland during Dec-Mar may be more appealling with the TC site.  I think that "off-season" tourists to Cleveland will be a good thing-regardless.  With everything else happening in the city, I'd like to think all of the non-MM/CC visitors will brings lots of good fortune to the city as the many CC/MM independent projects (FEB, WHD, Ave, Healthline, PHS) and world-class UC will attracts more and more tourists each year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we even know where the hotel will go or whether a convention sized hotel will even be built?

 

Isn't that important to know before we start labeling this project as a street killer (outside of consequences any given CC may have on street life)?

 

If the conventioners are going to be regularly traveling between the CC and Indigo, One, Marriot, Holiday Inn, Hilton, etc, I would think that would benefit street life plenty.

 

Now, if they build some monstrosity (sp?) as part of some mega complex with the CC and TC (as we saw in the previous rendering), I can see people's point.... but I would STILL think this is a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also agree with Clvlndr.  I think the TC site could yield a very unique and effective CC in Cleveland.  I'm really looking forward to the renderings of this facility.  As long as it's done right it could really be something special.

 

As for Public Hall going to waste I don't think this would be the case.  Would this building not be the perfect fit for a museum similar to the Field Museum in Chicago?  I'm not really familiar with the way museums are created/moved... but how difficult would it be to create a museum at the site or move one there?  What are the options if any?

 

I'm sure we would all like to see some renderings, but I fear that it will take an architectural miracle to become unique, effective, or something special. This is especially true considering they are already over budget. Perhaps if there was a new master plan for what could be built over the cc in the future, and a commitment from FCE to implement such a plan, I would be more enthusiastic about the TC site.

 

The museum idea is interesting but don't you prefer to have our collection of museums stay in University Circle?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3. I don't want renderings, site plans, or hard numbers from Clvndr.  I want them from the Convention Authority that is saying that we are saving money by going with a different site.  That should be a part of the planning process.  Instead they've put on blinders to the larger planning issues that the TC site raises in order to make the argument for that site.  And yes, I do think that is intentional on their part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The museum idea is interesting but don't you prefer to have our collection of museums stay in University Circle?

 

We have multiple museums downtown already- the Rock Hall and the Science Center to start, plus the Mather and USS Cod (and arguably the inside of the Soldiers and Sailors monument.)  One reason I saw on this board for supporting the current CC location was improving the connection betweent North Coast Harbor and the rest of downtown.  Since the RRHOF and GLSC aren't going anywhere, at least for the foreseeable future, a museum in the current CC/Public Hall space might be an interesting way to increase people flow from Public Square, through the civic district of city hall/the justice center/the federal building, and down to NCH.  I see it more as an expansion of the existing downtown museum district than as a detriment to the one in University Circle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...