Topic: Cleveland: Global Center for Health Innovation and Convention Center

[StrapHanger]

Thanks 70/65Cityguy- it's always useful to hear from someone with a more removed vantage point.  It's hard not to worry about the weather- just because we're strong enough to deal with it, doesn't mean out of towners will be willing to.

Re. the IX Center- I think the current operating lease is through 2014...which means it will overlap, in its current form, with the new CC for only a few years.  Not ideal, but not the end of the world.  It probably makes sense to keep the IX center around even after that, but with an operating lease restricting it to certain events that wouldn't work well downtown.

[Vulpster03]

I agree it would be best to concentrate the activity around the Tower City location.   Build on what you already have and help it grow and do better.

Believe me, The Mall site is extremely close to Tower City. If you were to exit Tower City on Public Square, you would probably be able to spot the entrance to the Convention Center on Ontario Avenue. "Building on what you already have and help it grow and do better," is exactly why some one would favor the Mall site.

We don't know about "the Mall" - so actually - while that area may be important to local planners, most people in town for a convention probably won't care.  They will be looking for fun places to go get a bite to eat and a drink, to walk around and see a few recommended sites

1. Most out-of-towners won't care once they're here on the lake or the river. I agree exactly, so why not be sure that the citizens of Cuyahoga (who voted to generously pay for a convention center) do what is in the best interest of fiscal responsiblity and good planning.
2. To be honest, the Mall site is much more impressive than the Tower City site from a visitor perspective. The Tower City site offers views of the Cuyahoga River and a weed choked peninsula. I'm sure out of towners would get a big kick breaking the ice over jokes about the river. The mall site on the other hand offers panoramic views of the lake, harbor, Rock Hall and Browns stadium. Out of Towners will get a stronger positive impact of the city on the lake.

[clvlndr]

I actually totally agree with you about how unnecessary all this drama is.  But remember, the original planning study leaned heavily towards the Mall.  I see it as the TC proponents who keep dragging this thing out, requiring a new study to make sure that the TC site wins, and FCE gets its handout.  That really is the only reason this is being done at all.

Well, could this be b/c the commishes maybe, prematurely, gave TC a sense of entitlement a year or so ago when the proposal was 1st broached?  -- even before, obviously, there was any deal in hand.  This of course would understandably lead some (esp UOers) to believe FCE had paid some kind of under/table favor in whatever form.  I don't recall the exact sequence of events, but from the beginning all I seem to remember was talk of a Higbee's Build showroom and artist’s renderings of a cc behind TC (w/ Steve Litt's negative critique a long time ago).  I know people on this board have been strong for the Mall since that time, but the 1st I began hearing of it from Hagan & Co. was when the deadline drew near.

[clvlndr]

70/65cityguy, ... Amen, brother.

[Cleburger]

As a veteran of the convention/entertainment industry, here are my bullet points on why rehabbing the existing site makes more sense:

1.  The convention business is dying still after a huge post September 11 decline.
2.  Convention goers do not care about malls.  Witness the top convention markets of Orlando, Chicago and Vegas (well OK it's one giant mall--with prositutes, gambling and 24 hour cocktails--something Tower City won't ever have).
3.  Convention attendees DO NOT USE LIGHT RAIL.  This is something I hear from Clevelanders in favor of the Tower City location all the time.  Save for vendors and some exhibitors at McCormick Place, I can't think of any major convention site that really needs light rail to make it work.  Besides, wouldn't it be nice to have a link on the Lakeside Ave side to the Waterfront Line?  So there would actually be a couple riders who are not homeless?
4.  Public Hall, Music Hall and the theatres are historic places.  Cleveland--wake up!   We have these beautiful facilities that can be spiffed up and integrated into a modern convention center.  We shouldn't turn our backs on these treasures.  I bet most of you don't know about the other theatres in that building, do you?
5.  We already have two huge convention and meeting attractions in place--the Science Center and Rock Hall already host many evening corporate functions and would continue to do so with direct access to the convention center across the tracks.   
6.  No matter what Forest City argues, Tower City is still only a couple blocks away.  So lets use our public money to build on the existing site, and let Forest City kick in their money for an underground walkway or above ground bridgeway to let convention-goers find their mall (if they so choose).

[audidave]

^Totally agree with all points.  They can find their mall at Tower city, Galleria, or maybe even Arcade.  I think the vantage point of the Mall location opens up Cleveland for an incredible range of experiences and opportunities by walking any particular direction or taking a cab or the light rail. 

[gotribe]

Well, lets face it, I think all supporters of the Tower City site feal as though this is their only chance to fill in the huge hole/parking ramp that greets people coming into the city.  They use other reasons why Tower City is better, but in the back of their minds, this is their logic.  I don't know which site I prefer, I am just happy the med mart is coming.

[3231]

^I prefer the TC site, but I've never even thought of 'filling the huge hole/parking lot' as a reason for locating the new cc there.

[CleveChiNola]

I would just love to see something across the street from the Gateway Arena (The "Q"), rather than just having the street fall off.

That said, I perfer the original site

[Urbanite107]

In my view the convention center would do best at the TC location. It would greet people coming into the city and give the overall skyline from 71 90 east and 77 a much more impressive feel to it. Some people argue that an underground convention center would be much more impressive and that point is debatable. The upside to having the whole convention center shooting up and proclaiming "I am Cleveland" just speaks out to me, as well as many other Clevelanders who perhaps don't go to conventions and simply enjoy the architecture, much more. It is a matter of pride for Clevelanders all around. On top of having such a symbolic building, I'm sure that conventioners would also welcome the added advertising that position offers.

As far as the old convention site goes... I believe that the Greater Cleveland Film Commission is currently looking for a headquarters. You might come back rightly and say "I don't believe that there's that big of a future for the film industry in Cleveland" and I would have to agree with you (at least for the foreseeable future).

Another option that I think would work best is to create the Cleveland Aquarium in this area. As many other people advocate that this convention center is open to the views of the lake... what better opportunity to tie it into aquatic life in a museum? It would be a much better transition than just a plain convention center in my opinion and would connect many of the other retail and hotel areas around the mall as well. This works well for people that want the space filled and not abandoned.

All in all the TC site just keeps speaking out to me to be the best. FC has expressed interest in developing the peninsula opposite the Cuyahoga if they get the convention site they want.. so why not? Yes yes I know there will be some people here that'll come and say that they don't like FC and their plans for the convention center at TC because they've made too much profit off of Cleveland already. Well sirs, that is what business and corporations are for - to make money. FC is not going to invest in something that it doesn't believe will make them profit. If it works out with the whole overview layout of Cleveland then I stress again, why not?

Let FC build its convention center, let the old convention center become an aquarium, but most importantly - let the developers develop! There indeed has been too much bickering over which project is best and the longer you wait the more likely people will get fed up and burn the project altogether!

[KJP]

Urbanite, If you're looking for a "symbolic" building "shooting" up, you may be disappointed with what the convention center is likely to be (regardless of location). All prior renderings of the Tower City site (I've posted some in this thread as have others) depict a long, low, box-like structure along Huron Road. Moreover, unless some new designs find a better way of doing this, expect the truck loading docks to face the river side of the convention center. I'm sure there will be a glassy facade aligned roughly with the The Avenue portion of Tower City and facing the river (as prior renderings have depicted), but that's apparently all the glassy portions you will see.

Yes I'm aware final designs can and probably will change. But I wouldn't expect architectural masterpieces at either location. Expect places that function well within the physical constraints of their sites.

BTW, Forest City won't be building the convention center, the county will. And convention centers, except for a few cities, are notorious money-losers. They are loss leaders that are intended to boost other aspects of city's economy. Sometimes it even happens that way....

[McCleveland]

I can't wait for the site selection to be announced so we can stop rehashing the same arguments over... and over... and over.

[willyboy]

and over and over.....

[KJP]

You think the site selection will end the debate? (And I wasn't debating the site -- I don't have a preference).

We're still debating whether Key Tower should have been built taller than Terminal Tower (since 1991), if Albert Porter should have built a freeway through the Shaker Lakes (1960s), why Cleveland doesn't have a subway (1954, 1944, 1930, 1920), if they should have put streets through Public Square (1910s?), and even if the Columbus Road Toll Bridge was the source of the east-west side rivalry (1830s).

[CleveChiNola]

stupid toll road.  I am glad I burned it down in a past life

[mrnyc]

You think the site selection will end the debate? (And I wasn't debating the site -- I don't have a preference).

We're still debating whether Key Tower should have been built taller than Terminal Tower (since 1991), if Albert Porter should have built a freeway through the Shaker Lakes (1960s), why Cleveland doesn't have a subway (1954, 1944, 1930, 1920), if they should have put streets through Public Square (1910s?), and even if the Columbus Road Toll Bridge was the source of the east-west side rivalry (1830s).

sigh. how sad to have to pile on that list of old worries and woes, but i cant resist adding one you left off -- so let's also add 1986-ish to the unbuilt subway debate list (dual-hub).

totally agree that a public site selection decision (a second one at that!) won't end a thing as far as debate about a new convention center. unlike the subway dodges, in this case that's not a bad thing. better to make to sure to do it right, whatever the heck site is selected.

[McCleveland]

You think the site selection will end the debate? (And I wasn't debating the site -- I don't have a preference).

We're still debating whether Key Tower should have been built taller than Terminal Tower (since 1991), if Albert Porter should have built a freeway through the Shaker Lakes (1960s), why Cleveland doesn't have a subway (1954, 1944, 1930, 1920), if they should have put streets through Public Square (1910s?), and even if the Columbus Road Toll Bridge was the source of the east-west side rivalry (1830s).

 Sorry KJP, that wasn't directed at you or even meant to be a bad thing... It's a public forum and certainly everyone is entitled to their opinion.  I just think we (UO's / City & County Officials / General Public) have rehashed this issue over... and over... and over... and over.  I think it's pretty fair to say the masses are divided.  It's just that everyone who likes the TC site likes it because X,Y, and Z.  And those that like the existing site like it because of A,B, and C. Only no matter who is bringing it up it's always the same X,Y, and Z and the same A,B, and C.... It's just getting tiresome.  And how long has this been discussed, how many studies have been done (and how much public money spent for these studies).

And yes, once the site selection is made, the debate phase is over... then it's time to start the whining / gloating phase.

And i still maintain that the Mall Site is better... but it will still get built behind TC for a variety of political reasons...

[clvlndr]

^ I don't buy that.  CC may just be built at TC because TC is the better site, period.

[CleveChiNola]

tastes great.....less filling.....

[McCleveland]

^ I don't buy that.  CC may just be built at TC because TC is the better site, period.

Sorry... but i've actually seen some of the reports.  There's a reason they officially selected the mall site the last go round of this... They still don't even have a clue of 1. How to work the infastructure for the TC site to make it viable... 2. Any realistic idea how much the infastructure for that crap box on the river is going to cost.

that being said... they'll probably still try to cram this thing back there.  I'm officially done talking about this until a decision is made.

[Htsguy]

^That's my biggest fear about the TC site.  It is going to be that "crap box" that was proposed before.  I am not an expert but I cannot see how anything architecturally pleasing can be crammed into that site and we are going to moaning about it for years. 

[KStay2]

^That's my biggest fear about the TC site.  It is going to be that "crap box" that was proposed before.  I am not an expert but I cannot see how anything architecturally pleasing can be crammed into that site and we are going to moaning about it for years. 

You're right, there is nothing in NYC that is architecturally pleasing..

[McCleveland]

^That's my biggest fear about the TC site.  It is going to be that "crap box" that was proposed before.  I am not an expert but I cannot see how anything architecturally pleasing can be crammed into that site and we are going to moaning about it for years. 

You're right, there is nothing in NYC that is architecturally pleasing..

It was a crap box because something like a convention center in the size we require for this to work physically can't fit back there.  That's why it has hulking structures devouring West Huron Road creating a virtual tunnel.  it's why the thing looks a crap box on stilts that's about to collapse at any second and fall into the water.  And it's why they still have absolutely no idea how to build the infastructure to actually access this bastardization or how much it would cost.  Your comment about new york is utterly absurd.  There is not a single example (and I spent 2 years working on a building and practically living in New York), not a SINGLE example of ANY comparable site to what they have to deal with here.  In fantasy land people can have their pretty and iconic CC peacefully mergeing with the river banks.  But here in reality it is a crapbox smashed into the side of Tower City, propped up from the river on stilts with imaginary roads that haven't been designed flying through the air to create loading dock access.  And if you think this convention center is magically going to make Barney's reappear inside TC you are out of your fricking mind.

[MayDay]

"But here in reality it is a crapbox smashed into the side of Tower City, propped up from the river on stilts with imaginary roads that haven't been designed flying through the air to create loading dock access."

Absolutely - unless they know something we and most people with an modicum of understanding of siting a convention center don't. If the architects/planners can actually make the TC site work aesthetically, I will happily stand corrected. I'm sure they can make it function, but if it's going to look good... well, I'd like to see how. It's not just access to A loading dock, it's access and an appropriate marshalling yard (aka where trucks sit and wait to load/unload) for least 20 loading docks - 20 being an approximate industry average that they're hoping to meet.

[redbrick]

Just reading about the continuing fallout in the airline industry these last few weeks and with the prospect of airline industry consolidation once again on the front page, plus we have movement at the state level on rail -- I'll ask the question again. Shouldn't the connection to a future rail station (Ohio hub?) on the lakefront be a key factor in siting this thing? Wouldn't that sort of direct connection set Cleveland's facility apart for regional trade shows/events?

[w28th]

With the right designer, maybe these huge, floating pieces of equipment (the truck docks) become the image of the building.  If done correctly it could almost evoke images of the frozen industrial infrastructure of the city; the Jackknife bridges, the Hulletts, shuttered steel mill structures, etc.  It could be very powerful. 

[Flee2theCleve]

is that the imagery we want visitors to come away with of our city?

[MayDay]

Shuttered steel mills, maybe not - but something inspired by views like this might work:

[McCleveland]

I agree that good design could help, but really... that's not the problem. The problem is the site.  There's too much of a dropoff in the bank, not to mention not enough room between Huron Road and the bank.  Actually, the initial site plan for tower city called for two slim towers to be built out on each end of tower city on the banks (I have actually seen these renderings and site plans)... They actually realized a version of the first one of these in the courthouse tower.  The other one was supposed to go on the banks by Huron and Ontario.  Now of course they are just trying to develop it so they plug for the CC.  The problem is of that the site is simply too narrow for the NEEDS of a CC.  The floorplates need to be too big.  That's while they are all dumb boxes.  You just need HUGE, OPEN spaces.  Take the Pittsburgh CC for instance.  Actually I think one of the better looking ones around.  If you were to take that CC and drop it on this site (and both are obviously river banks) that CC would come out all the way across the cuyahoga practically to Scranton Peninsula.  Not to mention that if it were to start at street level the thing would look like a disc hanging half jammed into tower city, and there would be stilts in the middle of the river where barges go.  That is why, the initial plans for ours on this location have it crammed up against tower city with big hulking boxes extending OVER Huron.  Another point of fact is that more often than not with publicly financed projects you just aren't going to get top notch architecture.  It's just the way it is. That is why the vast majority of CC's are big boxes... and this happens to be a horrible, horrible location to put a big box.

[the pope]

I'm not a convention expert, but if there's two major gripes I always tend to see its 1) gross space and 2) continuous space.

I agree with McCleveland here, there's just no way to gerrymander a large amount of continuous space on the back of TC (unless they go out to Scranton?)

[McCleveland]

^Exactly, so their solution to this was to abut it against TC and go over Huron Road which is awful.  And if they extend out into the river, how is it supported? And how much does this engineering marvel to the world cost?  Not to mention FC would like to give us the taxpayers the priveledge of figuring out these very complex issues for the mere price of 40 million dollars.

Meanwhile 3 blocks North you have a space that already has pretty much all infastructure work complete, an already figured out affordable way to remove all columns inside the existing structure while adding a Northern portion that offers sweeping views of the lake and North Coast Harbour, creating "skylights" on the malls that not only allow natural light in the space but change the landscape of the malls and allow you to look in on seas of people at conventions, direct access from light and commuter rail... The county is willing to give their space (and maybe someone can take them and lock them in a room at the bottom of the courthouse with Bob Stark until these two fools realize they need eachother to achieve what they both want), which rids one of the ugliest conglomerate of buildings downtown, and replaces them with something potentially way more "iconic" than the FC site in the form of some new hotel tower and potentially the medical mart itself.... Oh... and this space costs us nothing. We already own it.

Which is why I can't wait for them to explain why they've selected the TC site... neat.

[Mov2Ohio]

What about expanding north east into Tower City?

[StrapHanger]

Oh... and this space costs us nothing. We already own it.

Does the county own the southern part of the block west of Mall B?  I didn't think it did.  No doubt cheaper than $40M, but not exactly free either.  I still prefer the Mall site though.

EDIT: I guess the block west of Mall B isn't really essential to some of the Mall schemes, so I guess this is a problem for future hotel developers, not the county.

[CleveChiNola]

^I think the buildings there are county buildings, at least some of them.

I can't imagine any part of the group plan being sold to private developers over the years

[McCleveland]

Those are definitely the current county buildings (at least some of them, the county employees are scattered which is why they wanted a new headquarters to begin with).  When the mall site was first selected the plan was for them to vacate the buildings (into the ameritrust complex) and they would then just become part of the mall site.

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/convention/imageDetail.php?ID=mwb&pageNum_Rimages=8