tlb919, casey and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but federal law prevents that from happening.
Well, wasn't the "Lakefront Option" of the current CC site stretching the Convention Center over the tracks and or Shoreway, with the Mall stretching along over the top?
^Yet another reason why Tower City's the better site.
I disagree neighbor. Having the center attached to Tower City only helps one group. Tower City. Not Cleveland as a whole. - MyTwoSenseHuh? Helps only one group? Surely your not still letting your hatred of Ratner/Miller/FCE cloud your vision. Does Tower City belong to them or, rather does it not belong to all of us? Is not TC the most important mixed-use complex in all of Cleveland and, if so are you ready, as you sound, to simply let it die simply because you have it in for Ratner? Is that logical, MTS?Tower City is right across the street from/can stimulate Stark/Pesht and, finally, link TC with WHD, our most popular/prosperous residential/entertainment area. Ditto, to the East, it can stimulate growth in the dead zone linking Public Sq to E. 4th. Right now Fat Fish Blue is one of the only prosperous retail or restaurants in that zone. I really don't see how rebuilding at the current location helps downtown so much. How much has the old underground CC at the location helped? How much spinoff can you have at the Mall which, true to Dan Burnham's revolutionary Turn of the (20th) Century grouping, is surrounded by a wall of single-use (mostly handsome) public buildings that go dark M-F after 6p, particularly the (not so handsome) Justice Center, which would block the MMPI/CC from the WHD? --- and lets not forget, in our infinite wisdom, we've rebuilt the Stadium along the Mall/CC's northern flank -- assuming CC receives air rights to build over the RR/RTA tracks as we discussed yesterday. After the conventions are over, do you really see this area as a people place generating needed revenue for the city?
Well you and I are going to have to "agree" to "disgree" on the subject of location for the new CC.
..... in the long run, downtown wins either way.
And let's not get revisionist with these assertions that this is a bad use of lakefront land, because it isn't lakefront land, it is the air rights over the impediments to the lakefront that we would be building over and making into pedestrian friendly public space. Stating otherwise is either misinformed or misleading.
Re: using the current CC/Public Auditorium for studio/soundstage space- can anyone point to any sort of study to prove that this is a feasible use that can support the upkeep of these structures for some time to come?
Re: site suitability of the TC site for Convention Center layout and use- the Planning Commission already studied the sites and found the TC site to be seriously deficient and inferior to the current CC site in terms of layout of the CC's space and access. I've posted the results of that study here multiple times, apparently nobody reads it.
Get ready for the TC site
I think when it comes to Tower City, downtown and Convention Center there are two different thought processes1. Aim to build a stronger downtown by using the existing/lakefront site, and we will see a better Tower City.2. Aim to build a stronger Tower City by using the riverfront site, and we will see a better downtown.