|
3231
|
Columbus has quite an interesting-looking convention center. I like it. I spent the last three days there in a hotel right across the street. Short North is a nice looking district. Seems quite new. I am curious as what it used to look like.
|
|
|
|
MayDay
|
Although Pittsburgh's new convention center is a wonderful piece of architecture, it is a good example of how new facilities are money-losing propositions from the day they open.
|
|
|
|
Map Boy
|
Nobody's rushing into anything and that's a good thing, but what's it going to take to make them drop the whole thing??? This has been going on for about a decade and there's clearly no easy answer...not to mention no proof that this is something we actually NEED.
|
|
|
|
KJP
|
I think the idea of a rebuilt convention center might work -IF- it's done in conjunction with providing other things to make it more useful for Cuyahoga County residents and the region's economy, namely....
> Creating a climate-protected pedestrian link between downtown and the lakefront;
> Incorporating a regional multi-modal transportation center;
> Offering facilities for a point of collaboration, idea-incubation and career-building between all Northeast Ohio institutions of higher learning and employers;
> Creating more year-round links between downtown buildings;
> Providing community festivals (below ground in winter, on the mall in summer);
> And, yes, providing a location for conventions, trade shows and large meetings.
The great thing about all these activities is there are local, state and federal funding programs in place TODAY for each and every one of them. If we incorporated multiple uses into this facility, Cuyahoga County voters wouldn't have to vote on whether to increase local taxes for rebuilding the facility. But it would require our state and federal legislative delegations to work hard for the funding for this.
KJP
|
|
|
|
Map Boy
|
agreed...all good points KJP. It's not that I wouldn't want to see one built...I'm just having a hard time justifying the cost for a center that most of us won't ever set foot in. Your comments take into account this factor.
|
|
|
|
Map Boy
|
Anyone else go to the public meeting today? I did! I love being back in town and getting to sit in on these totally accessible meetings for such huge projects...
There was nothing colorful or even visual at all to share from this meeting, but the overall feel was that bringing the cost of construction within range without losing the most critical features will not be a problem. Representatives from the CFA, engineers, City Planning, and Convention Bureau, as well as preservationists, event planners, builders, etc. all weighed in. The meeting was structured well and all in attendance were allowed time to comment and question issues that were brought up.
This is by no means an official transcript, but the main topics of discussion revolved around the following issues that will help reduce the cost of construction:
1) Replacing "clear span" exhibition hall with a hall that will have columns at 90' intervals. The "columnless" feature is regarded as one of the main competitive selling points of the new center and there was much opposition to this.
2) Reducing the recommended square footage of the main exhibition hall from 300,000 square feet to 275,000 or less. Much like the previous recommendation, this was opposed, but will be considered.
3) Considering the options and cost factors of building above or below ground. There were arguments that supported each and the result is that both will be considered.
4) Further evaluation of tax credit options for restoration of historic structures. This applies primarily to the existing structure, which may or may not be renovated as a part of this project.
5) Pursuing federal and other outside public funding for the inclusion of multimodal transit facilities on a northward expansion option. This was one of the main features of the proposals of the late 90s.
6) Consideration of options to build either westward, on the opposite side of Mall B, or northward. The northward expansion seems preferred at present because land acquisition costs are not an issue, whereas land on the west side of Mall B is currently not secured.
7) Exploration of revenue producing components of the plan that could pay for themselves. This consisted, primarily, of discussion of a large parking garage that could be built over the train tracks in a northern expansion.
Other issues, such as closing the existing center for a period in order to speed up construction, were nixed. There was also discussion of probable scenarios that would arise involving the I-X Center. These would likely not occur before 2008-2009 and as late as 2013.
|
|
|
|
3231
|
MGD,
Great post. Very informative.
|
|
|
|
Map Boy
|
you know i live for this stuff!
|
|
|
|
M Bajak 84
|
I don’t think the city of Cleveland is thinking logically about the whole situation with the Convention Center. Why spend hundreds of millions of dollars if you can't even get what you planed for. All this talk about adding support columns; making the exhibit space smaller; taking away parking facilities and much more... goes against the very concept of building a new center in the first place. ITS LIKE TRYING TO PUSH A SQUARE BLOCK THROUGH A ROUND HOLE. Its just not meant to be, especially when there are other options.
The city already controls the International Exposition Center a facility that is four times the size of the proposed Convention Center 800,000 sq feet. The city feels that it is more important to expand Cleveland Hopkins International Airport then keep the IX center in its present location. I do agree that Cleveland needs a much larger Airport, but tearing down the IX center to build a new runway and airport terminal will not solve any problems. There is no sense in renovating and expanding an 80-year-old airport that is completely boxed in from surrounding businesses, and homes.
My suggestion is to forget about spending all this money on building a new Convention Center downtown... at least for now. Its time to look at relocating the airport in an area where there are large open plains for plenty of room for future expansion projects. The farm lands outside Lorain are an ideal location. The area is properly situated between Cleveland, Toledo, Sandusky, and the Future Cleveland Quarries Community. I know the city wants the airport to remain in Cuyahoga County, but the fact of the matter is that there is no more room left to build. Airports need room to grow just as cities do.... THINK OUTSIDE OF THE BOX
Basically what im trying to say is that I feel an up to date airport in an Ideal location is much more valuable to the City then a remodeled Convention Center, especially when the city already has the IX center which attracts over 2 million visitors yearly... BUSINESSES LOOKING TO STAY AND RELOCATE IN THE CITY OF CLEVELAND DONT WANT A CONVENTION CENTER, THEY WANT A GATEWAY TO THE REST OF THE WORLD.
|
|
|
|
MyTwoSense
|
I don’t think the city of Cleveland is thinking logically about the whole situation with the Convention Center. Why spend hundreds of millions of dollars if you can't even get what you planed for. All this talk about adding support columns; making the exhibit space smaller; taking away parking facilities and much more... goes against the very concept of building a new center in the first place. ITS LIKE TRYING TO PUSH A SQUARE BLOCK THROUGH A ROUND HOLE. Its just not meant to be, especially when there are other options.
The city already controls the International Exposition Center a facility that is four times the size of the proposed Convention Center 800,000 sq feet. The city feels that it is more important to expand Cleveland Hopkins International Airport then keep the IX center in its present location. I do agree that Cleveland needs a much larger Airport, but tearing down the IX center to build a new runway and airport terminal will not solve any problems. There is no sense in renovating and expanding an 80-year-old airport that is completely boxed in from surrounding businesses, and homes.
My suggestion is to forget about spending all this money on building a new Convention Center downtown... at least for now. Its time to look at relocating the airport in an area where there are large open plains for plenty of room for future expansion projects. The farm lands outside Lorain are an ideal location. The area is properly situated between Cleveland, Toledo, Sandusky, and the Future Cleveland Quarries Community. I know the city wants the airport to remain in Cuyahoga County, but the fact of the matter is that there is no more room left to build. Airports need room to grow just as cities do.... THINK OUTSIDE OF THE BOX
Basically what im trying to say is that I feel an up to date airport in an Ideal location is much more valuable to the City then a remodeled Convention Center, especially when the city already has the IX center which attracts over 2 million visitors yearly... BUSINESSES LOOKING TO STAY AND RELOCATE IN THE CITY OF CLEVELAND DONT WANT A CONVENTION CENTER, THEY WANT A GATEWAY TO THE REST OF THE WORLD.
The biggest asset of the “chia pet” is its close proximity to the city. There is nowhere in Cuyahoga county to build an airport and the city will not pay to buy the land then build and maintain an airport in an adjacent county, Since many of those counties are sprawling. In addition with the financial status of airlines, they cannot contribute to helping build. O’hare can’t expand because American and United are not able to help. Atlanta can because Delta is near bankruptcy. As a person who is in the airport quite a bit (up to 80 departures a year), I wouldn't want a long commute; Hopkins will then have the hellish commutes similar to those using O’Hare, JFK, Dallas Ft. Worth and only aggravating flyers. YEs we want better air service, but lets face it...there is not hometown airline. We're a hub for an airlines that has it two main hubs elsewhere and limited planes so we get the "short" end of the stick. How we can help is getting behind our main airline and putting your butss in seats. I want the city to grow and for our leaders to think outside the box as well, which is why expandin the current center over the tracks to NCH and West to ontario could appease all. The smaller use rooms could be above ground and used as the base to the two "proposed" hotels attached and also linked to browns stadium which has conference facilities.
|
|
|
|
M Bajak 84
|
It just does not make sense to me. Cleveland is a city that is loosing Business to other more prosperous cities and spending money to build a new convention center does not seem to solve this problem. Yet, having a proper international airport would make the city more attractive to companies that do business around the world. It would also allow convient access to international tourist who wish to visit the city... THE FIRST THING YOU SEE WHEN YOU FLY INTO A CITY IS THE AIRPORT... THE LAST THING YOU SEE WHEN YOU FLY OUT OF A CITY IS THE AIRPORT.
All of the prospering big cities in the nation have already realized that, why hasen't Cleveland?
|
|
|
|
KJP
|
If this city wants to get a jump on others in a 21st century economy that looks to be fraught with resource limits, then...
> forget the airport for travel to cities within 500 miles of Cleveland;
> build high-speed rail linking big-city downtowns, moderate-sized cities, and airports;
> more aggressively pursue nonconventional energy research, and attract employers willing to innovate in this endeavor;
> become a distribution center (rail and water) for clean-coal liquefaction products;
> use the downtown convention center for the purposes I suggested a few messages earlier in this string.
I had to pose the last to bring this thread back to its original purpose!
KJP
|
|
|
|
Map Boy
|
I agree that there are major compromise issues that have made the "selling" of an expanded convention center even more difficult. And I do see that there are connections between airport expansion and convention center expansion. However, these deal pretty much exclusively with the I-X Center and the contract that the current operators have with it and how an expanded CC Downtown will affect their contract and their desire to stay operational. If they shut down, the airport can expand. If not, it'll be a bit longer before the City can entertain that option. As far as building a new airport somewhere else...that's not even on the table.
A couple other issues of note: the current CC conversation involves talk of adding significantly INCREASED parking facilities, not decreased as someone suggested earlier. I heard no mention of hotels during the last meeting. I don't think they're on the table at present. I think the opposition from existing hotels pretty much nixed that one for now. Though, I'm sure they'd consider accomodating one in the future.
|
|
|
|
zaceman
|
 |
« Reply #193 on: September 01, 2005, 04:37:05 PM » |
|
Forest City resubmits convention ctr. plan
The real estate developer has sent a letter to Convention Facilities Authority asking that the company’s proposal for a convention center south of Tower City Center be considered
By JAY MILLER
3:50 pm, September 1, 2005
and the saga continues...
|
|
|
|
punch
|
|
« Reply #194 on: September 01, 2005, 05:58:47 PM » |
|
So, my theory. Mayor Jane (probably with Chris Roynanne whispering in her ear) puts Ratner in charge of the school super search. They get chummy, mends fences and he re-subs the convention plan.
Sam Miller objects, and is over ruled.
If this is true, its another good day for Cleveland.
|
|
|
|
FerrariEnzo
|
|
« Reply #195 on: September 01, 2005, 07:31:15 PM » |
|
Ratners are playing the same game that Goldman played with LM...they still wanted it they just wanted to scare people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
gotribe
|
|
« Reply #197 on: September 02, 2005, 08:21:27 AM » |
|
If Mayor Jane wants to get re-elected, I think she needs to do whatever Forest City wants. If the Convention Center is put behind the mall, we have Jane for four more years.
|
|
|
|
pcforsgren
|
|
« Reply #198 on: September 02, 2005, 03:32:42 PM » |
|
wha? They randomly put Tower City back into the mix... oook. Forest City is about the hardest company to figure out I've ever seen. Maybe them getting the Case West Quad project hightened their interest in their home city again. Will be interesting to hear what caused the change.
|
|
|
|
blinker12
|
|
« Reply #199 on: September 03, 2005, 10:46:14 AM » |
|
A riverfront convention center is back in the running. Baaaaaaaaaaaaad idea. I was so miffed when I saw this. 1) The current convention center is beautiful, historic and right in the middle of downtown. Use it. 2) The riverfront site has no immediate connection to the rest of downtown. People would have to go up through Tower City just to get to Public Square. It also offers no chance to connect downtown to the lakefront, as the renovation plan does.
|
|
|
|
mrnyc
|
|
« Reply #200 on: September 03, 2005, 01:56:55 PM » |
|
this was disheartening to read about. i'm afraid the city may be forced to go for tower city this time since its cheaper than renovating and expanding the current cc. thats a shame as well as a mistake. for one thing, was there not just a press conference announcing going forward with the ohio high speed rail service plan? the new station for that would tie right into a renovated cc and maybe both could be tied together into one big project? its just an idea, but the point is think ahead. also, what on earth would happen with the old facilities? and again why place a pedestrian unfriendly big box on the waterfront like that?
if they do anything at all, they need to keep thinking about the future on this and do the right thing and not cheap out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
punch
|
|
« Reply #202 on: September 03, 2005, 03:29:42 PM » |
|
^it looks like an airport
|
|
|
|
3231
|
|
« Reply #203 on: September 03, 2005, 03:27:27 PM » |
|
Those renderings are great, but I think that it would take up too much space on the lakefront. I would rather have housing on the port's land.
I don't know what to think about Forest City's proposal. I am for the other site, but Forest City has the following going for it: direct link to 2 hotels, shopping, movies and rapid transit to the airport and Gund arena. I think that those are selling points that are superior to the present location. Overall, if I were an out of towner looking for a place to have my convention, I would prefer the tower city site for the above reasons. Of course, I would rather have conventioneers out roaming the streets than all locked up into the Tower City universe. But, the idea is to bring in more business. My guess is that TC would bring in more business than the present location. However, you have to weigh that against having an empty center on the lake and the loss of a possible connection to the waterfront.
|
|
|
|
punch
|
|
« Reply #204 on: September 03, 2005, 04:57:23 PM » |
|
You know if FC was THAT pissy about the county HQ, how will they react if the convention center still winds up on the mall?
I think a back room deal just happend. But, it may be for the best anyways.
|
|
|
|
KJP
|
|
« Reply #205 on: September 04, 2005, 07:03:55 PM » |
|
I always liked that FORUM vision for the center. But there's nothing that would have prevented building high-rise housing atop some of the parking facilities. If I recall, that plan also would have rerouted the Waterfront Line around the north side of the center, next to the lakefront. Alas, it wasn't to be.
If the riverfront site gets the nod, FC better make sure the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad station can be accommodated. I've even pondered a way to get intercity high-speed rail back into the station -- despite the construction of the Federal Courthouse Tower. But I'll discuss it at the Transportation section.
KJP
|
|
|
|
punch
|
|
« Reply #206 on: September 04, 2005, 10:26:14 PM » |
|
You know if the Tower city site is picked all that would be missing to make it a functioning mini-city is housing.
I hope the Scranton Penn. comes back into play
|
|
|
|
MyTwoSense
|
|
« Reply #207 on: September 05, 2005, 12:02:04 PM » |
|
Ratners are playing the same game that Goldman played with LM...they still wanted it they just wanted to scare people.
I was thinking the same thing! now they they might do this again, I hope the Jane will make them good on their promise to "enhance" TowerCity and upgrade/add on to the hotels and Scranton Penisula! Personally I still like the the mall location as it can be attached to the lakefront. Concentrating everything in one location and not letting the city "expand" is not a good thing in my opinion. Will building the CC attached to Towercity help the gateway and Warehouse district? Areas that are already doing fine and would grow regardless of where the center was. Or do we miss an opportunity to "enhance and strengthen" our lakefront and St. Clair and Lakeside?
|
|
|
|
3231
|
|
« Reply #208 on: September 05, 2005, 10:20:16 PM » |
|
I don't think that the current site would help anything other than the lakefront. Really, it is not a great location. One of Cleveland's biggest issues is the fact that our downtown's focal points are not connected. If the Scranton Peninsula could be developed and connected to TowerCity, I would be all for that plan.
|
|
|
|
KJP
|
|
« Reply #209 on: September 06, 2005, 09:41:04 PM » |
|
I would think that connecting the lakefront to the business district is a more pressing issue, especially under this administration.
KJP
|
|
|
|
