Two centuries after it was conceived as a New England-style town commons, Public Square in downtown Cleveland is a dead zone flanked by skyscrapers and filled by bus stops.
The main activity, as in Samuel Beckett’s angst-ridden play about Godot, is waiting.
But James Corner, one of the nation’s leading landscape architects, sees a huge potential to turn the 10-acre space at the heart of downtown into an iconic destination on par with Chicago’s Millennium Park. He wants to see the square filled with people strolling, sunning, picnicking or relishing public art, concerts, gardens or outdoor markets.
At the behest of two nonprofit organizations, Parkworks and the Downtown Cleveland Alliance, Corner has come up with three radical and highly inventive plans for the square… (go to article)
Architecture and the Urban Landscape- Blog on the City
- Cleveland Area History
- Cleveland Design Competition Weblog
- Cleveland Urban Design Collaborative
- Cuyahoga County Planning Commission Weblog
- Critic Under The Influence
- Design Belt
- GreenCityBlueLake
- POST-
- Renovating The Rust Belt
- Rockitecture
- TOI Studio Blog
- T R A C E KSU CAED
-
CLEDESIGNCITY ON TWITTER
CLEVELANDDESIGNCITY.COM RSS
December 20, 2009 at 12:30 pm
I’d like to actually foster a conversation about this project on here, if anyone actually participates… although it appears one might be already be happening on my facebook and also on urbanohio about it.
I’m trying to make up my mind. I think i’d prefer the second scheme if it also proposed shutting down Superior as well. I think it is just as an innovative approach to what a public space in a city like Cleveland could be, but achieved a little simpler then scheme 3.
As it stands, scheme 3 is probably the best, in that it allows the streets still run through Public Square, while also unifying the public aspects of the square. I think raising the square into being a hill is pretty awesome… but there is a A LOT that is unresolved with it. But that is ok, right now. We need to be worrying about the big idea behind it, not worrying over overly pragmatic details at this point. I know that design can be accomplished and I have faith Field Ops would be the office to pull it off. It is trying to be an innovative solution that allows the greatest possible access to the square. I think it should be possible to accommodate as many uses as is possible in the square. Scheme 3 is the only proposal that is being additive to Public Square, rather then taking away something that is already there to accommodate something new.
And its a solution I have never quite seen before for a situation such as Public Square. Similar projects, like Seattle’s Olympic Sculpture Park, or Field Op’s High Line project in NYC, or even the Big Dig in Boston have been completed, but none have quite been a true, pre-existing public space, like Public Square is. That excites me quite a bit about this project. People all over the world are going to be talking about these proposals, because that is the level Field Operations works at. That is good for design in Cleveland.
This proposal also sets a precedent in regards to bridging over both the inner belt trench by CSU and bridging over all the infrastructural crap from the Mall to The Lakefront, that yes, you can do this in Cleveland.
I’m also praying this doesn’t end up getting bastardized like MVRDV CIA project, or just goes completely quiet like FOA’s MOCA project.
I also hope the general attitude of Clevelander’s, which seems to be, “If it doesn’t personally benefit me, and if I haven’t already experienced something similar 5 other places, then I don’t understand it and I think it sucks” attitude ends up butchering the project. Let’s try be a little smarter about this then that.
December 20, 2009 at 1:23 pm
I think it’s relatively clear to everyone that a more hospitable and useful Public Square would benefit them. I agree that what’s unclear is the atmosphere Scheme 3 (which is both the most radical and the most practical) would create at street level, something that Steven Litt brought up in his piece.
What Scheme 3 (Thread It!) would accomplish is to differentiate and, dare I say, prioritize, among Cleveland urban green spaces, enabling Public Square to operate autonomously as opposed to being an unassuming punctuation of several dominant conditions (Euclid Avenue, Tower City Center, The Group Plan).
That being said, I agree that Scheme 2, in concert with the closing of Ontario to vehicular traffic, would accomplish many of the same things more efficiently, though less inventively. It would get the job done, but would do so without attracting too much attention, perpetuating the punctuational status quo.
Scheme 1 and Scheme 2, while easier to implement, would be an insufficient transformation and, in this author’s opinion, just a rotation of tires rather than replacing the existing wheels with 22″ spinners like Scheme 3. Scheme 3 would create an inventive and original public space for Cleveland, something that could be recognized independent of a superficial comparison to Central Park.
Let’s get behind this thing. It can’t happen soon enough.
December 20, 2009 at 3:24 pm
When the intersection of Superior and Ontario was closed due to a water line break (right after work was completed for the Euclid Corridor/streetscape Plan) Public Square was a joy to move across. The only thing lacking was enough street level attractions to draw in the people/safety required to make the quad truly active. A couple of nice lunch cafes with exterior seating, a strong police presence and a comprehensive and understandable revamp of the public transit system would go a long way.
I could also expect some city sponsored events to draw people such as music, theater, public forum, etc. so that a spectator/spectacle balance can be struck making public square a destination instead of just a convenient pass through.
Cleveland does have quite a few nice public spaces that suffer from under usage, either due to a lack of residential/business population or a perceived sense of safety I would expect DCA and city council working on trying to figure out how to sell the public on those spaces.
Star Plaza is a pretty nice Cleveland example of a public space which is nicely active in the warmer summer months, even during weekends and evenings due to the theaters. What can be done nearby to other spaces to get people to use them?
That is if the main purpose is to create public spaces that are to be used for more than grand passage which it doesn’t have to be for every specific example. I would hope that Public Square is about creating a grand Public Space for people to experience but I have my own agenda.