Recent Comments
- John Polk said “I knew Charles when he was EVP of The Atlanta Chamber and I worked for ...” on Memories of Oklahoma City circa 1993
- John Polk said “Back in the mid-80's and early 90's, Cleveland was actually recognized as one of the ...” on Economic development in NEO: A view from the street-level
- John Polk said “Is there any way to substantiate Dimora's claim re: GCP and the PD, other than ...” on Cleveland’s new development dynamic?
- George Nemeth said “Like all glimmers of newness in CLE+ I expect this one to be crushed too” on Cleveland’s new development dynamic?
- Cleveland’s new development dynamic? | Brewed Fresh Daily said “[...] by Ohio voters, as gambling interests convert the Ohio constitution into a zoning ordinance. ...” on Ohio’s casino deal gets a bit more messy
- About BDP Comments
Meta
Ed Morrison · Where should the convention center go?
May 23rd, 2008
According to some folks who attended the public session last night on the convention center, the meeting got pretty hot.
The common sense location for the convention center could be overridden by political concerns and the pressure to bail out Tower City. Public voices last night put their finger on the tight relationship between Forest City and the GCP.
The problem with the Tower City scenario: the location does not work logistically very well. Conventions are a business of flow — moving people and equipment in and out quickly. To be competitive (and gain market share in a very soft market), Cleveland must excel at logistics.
The Tower City location is too tight to make logistics competitive. The biggest risk of the Tower City/Forest City option, then, is that the public will end up with an expensive, empty box.
Public assesses proposed sites for convention center, medical mart
One conclusion is clear. After ten years of trying, Cleveland’s leadership does not have a clue about how to design and manage a civic process to get a convention center built.
Perhaps someone should consult the Portland (OR) Planning Commission Public Participation Manual and the Commission’s Public Participation Policy.
Last 5 posts by Ed Morrison
- Signing off - February 3rd, 2012
- "The current global development model is unsustainable" - February 1st, 2012
- Market opportunities for developing Chicago's green economy - January 29th, 2012
- Plain Dealer flubs its explanation for firing Tony Grossi - January 27th, 2012
- Linking and leveraging university assets to strengthen regional economies - January 27th, 2012
May 24th, 2008 at 10:57 am
I don’t know. Tower City is close to hotels and restaurants and the river. Those qualities seem to support a pretty good convention center in San Antonio. We could have riverwalk connecting the whole riverfront, like they do. The logistics piece I haven’t looked at, though, and it could be an issue.
May 24th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
A March blog post by the PD’s Steven Litt on possible convention center sites might be relevant here. One line: “[A 2005] proposal [by Forest City] showed that a convention center on 11 acres behind the Terminal Tower would have to rise at least 200 feet straight up from the edge of the Cuyahoga River, with a ballroom that would cantilever over Huron Road, turning the street into a partial tunnel.”
May 24th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Jonathan:
I’m reflecting comments by my brother, Hunter, who was the city planner in Cleveland for about 20 years. He has studied the issue carefully.
His view is in line with Steven Litt’s, as linked by Vince. (Thanks, Vince!)
The key element is staging. Hunter points to San Diego as one convention center with leading edge logistics.
The interesting aspect of all this to me: The City Planning Commission and the Cleveland Convention Center Facilities Authority are completely out of the picture.
This civic process is tortured, to say the least. It’s hard not to view this process as forcing one outcome: a convention center at Tower City.
In my view, the finger prints of Sam Miller and Arnold Ratner are all over this goofball, upside down approach to building a convention center.
Does a massive public investment in a convention center still make sense in an unprecedented era of $4.00 per gallon gasoline, the acceleration of Internet collaboration tools, and lasting cutbacks in corporate travel?
We have no idea, of course, because there is no reliable, updated market analysis. Here’s what an analysis would look like, if someone did one. Download a Powerpoint on Pittsburgh.
In my view, the County Commission is responding to political pressure from Forest City, not market realities.
May 26th, 2008 at 11:39 am
How about nowhere.
That would save the $800 million, would save us from building money-losing parking garages, save us from an empty old convention center, save us from having to subsidize a new, luxury hotel, save us from turning the IX center back to the Park Corp. at a huge loss.
Indeed, it might save us from NOT looking at the problems that exist and need correction.
May 26th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
BURN THE MONEY!
The only benefit that a concenter will bring to Cleveland is bankruptcy.
And we need to bottom NEO out sooner rather than later.
“Fail often, Fail fast” is the healthy mantra.
So, since we know already that a concenter is a failed strategy of econ. dev. , let’s just shoot ourselves in the head and get it over with.
Like Eight Belles – in the Derby – Cleveland needs it’s present management “put down” – and bankruptcy will help do that.
I support the sales tax, buying 800 million in bonds, and then publicly BURNING the bond revenues in Public Square (let the Ratners and Millers and Forest City have box seats).
This type of self confident flamboyant bravado will let the world know that CLEVELAND HAS IT ALL, TOGETHER!
You think I’m kidding?
May 26th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
As Roldo says, nowhere may be best choice for now but I think that train has left the station. If they are putting it somewhere it should NOT be at Tower City. That E.55th trial balloon location would not be a bad idea but that means, in my opinion, it should be put on hold for now. Revitalizing that area with hotels and shops and restaurants etc. would have to happen first — then build the C Ctr.
May 26th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
[...] Morrison critiques the process at Brewed Fresh Daily: One conclusion is clear. After ten years of trying, Cleveland’s leadership does not have a clue [...]
May 26th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
What Roldo said. The convention center and “medical mart” projects are a terrible waste of taxpayers’ money and should be terminated.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:43 am
I believe it is wrong to think that this has “left the station,” though I understand the sentiment.
The County is now in disarray. The PD has started a useless “reform” in that it is rushing a decision based on no factual basis.
The paper is looking for its “score” on this matter, a very bad way to reform anything.
It’s up to citizens to organize to see that some rational method of making County government more responsive.
Keeping the three commissioners – Hagan’s proposal and the PD’s dubious seconding makes for bad reform.
The best action that could be taken by citizens is a banding together to put the mart/convention center on hold until a new, more viable county government could be formulated.
There is absolutely no reason to go ahead with a badly planned mart and convention center simply because the tax has been passed and the money flows.
There would be many needs for that money without it being wasted.
ANd I will warn that the mart/convention center will elicit cries from the usual organizations that frame Cleveland’s needs. Foundations, Greater Cleveland Partnership, et. al.
The frame will demand new hotels, highly subsidized. AT least one and maybe two parking garages, paid for by taxpayers and money losers from the day they open.
Cleveland needs citizen’s organizations and this issue provides what should be such an impetus for such organization.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:30 am
How does a convention center bail out Tower City? If it is increased foot traffic at the dollar stores and down-market shops at Tower City, I doubt that declining convention traffic will support that. If it is the free upgrades to parking and infrastructure for Tower City, wouldn’t the inconvenience of a multiyear construction project strangle Tower City (just as the Euclid Corridor project has killed off those businesses). Who will even bother to come downtown to shop anyway after the thing is built…
Why are we doing this again?
May 27th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Dru of TOI Studio wrote a review of the meeting here:
Toi Studio On The Convention Center
Also, Cleveland Design City has a running aggregation of opinions of the issue here:
Cleveland Design City On The Con Center/Med Mart
May 27th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Actually I like it being part of tower city or at least within walking distance.
Tower City has a direct link to the airport, it has available retail space to provide for the essesntials a person traveling may need. It’s enclosed, is a cheap cab ride to the warehouse district, treemont, Ohio city or the flats. It highlights the revival of Cuyahoga River, could have access to the towpath trail. It showcases the industrial valley that built this city.
I don’t know about logistics or how the space configuration could help or hinder the project but it seems like an ideal space. Espcially in today’s $4.00 a gallon economy.
If we had amtrack or light rail running again couldn’t tower city be a central terminal for that traffic? (I admittedly have no understanding of the rail system here) It would be shorter and less costly to take a train from places like Chicago, NYC or DC then to take a flight. Not to mention the costs here are far less then in those locations.
Lastly, it’s going to be built why not do it right. Too often Cleveland settles for less because govt get’s in the way. ie the Innerbelt Bridge Project.
We should build a state of the art showplace that can be multi-functional, has all the newest technologies and is built with self sustaining technolgies. Let’s show off and create something great… not just another convention center.