Misguided Intelligence

Reading through the Forum section of the Cleveland Plain Dealer has become almost comical; mostly because if you don't find it comical, you might find yourself sulking in a corner, depressed that you live in what is most definitely the worst city to live in on the planet...Rarely do you read an uplifting response to a Steven Litt architectural critique of some aspect of the current urban environment. People constantly analyze the problems that plague the city of Cleveland, when perhaps the biggest of problems do not lie in those things that can be analyzed. Imagine if half the attention paid picking out what was wrong with the city was re-directed towards finding a solution. How many times a year can we really complain about public square being a morbidly under-utilized space? The public square problem evolved from the social evolution of the city of Cleveland, and not really just the city of Cleveland, but cities everywhere. We have a square that was functionally designed to fit within the social parameters of a time when you didn't have the current volume (and types) of vehicular traffic that now shares the space with pedestrians. Durign the early 1900's, before Terminal Tower, the majority of the buildings on public square were dedicated to retail commerce. The square functioned as a vibrant urban space because it was densely packed with 3-4 story retail buildings that functioned as drug stores, clothing stores, boutique hotels, smoke shops, and cafes. Now many of the commercial spaces offered on the first floor of terminal tower are far too large for these types of smaller retail functions to even think about moving back downtown. During the first part of the 20th century, the square functioned quite well because it wasn't that unrealistic to have each quadrant function as its own space because of the diverse retail uses that framed each square. Now we have a condition where the buildings that frame the square do not have a diverse enough mix of uses to produce an active urban face for the square. I am not quite convinced that a re-design alone of public square would really transform the space into something we could truly be proud of. Right now what should be being done is an initiative by the city (which we all know is not going to happen...so apparently we have to start it) to re-think the program of not only the square, but the surrounding buildings as well. Is there a better way to program the spaces inside terminal tower, especially on the ground level, that could permit some type of interface between the retail spaces and the square? What could truly produce something incredible is a re-design of public square, in conjunction with re-thinking how the urban forms that frame the space interact with it. You are not going to solve all of Cleveland's problems by sticking an information kiosk and hot dog vendors in the middle of each square, but there as surely ways to begin to immediately re-program at least the square itself. The most obvious concern about re-designing public square is the cost...Especially with ideas like burying Superior and Ontario being tossed around. So why not begin the idea forming stage of a re-design (which could take years) while producing immediate programming solutions that could at least activate the current space without significant cost implications (I know you've all seen "Design on Dime"...the rooms don't look THAT bad!). Worst case scenario is you'll discover a bunch of programming solutions that do not fit within the context of the current Cleveland culture, which will ultimately help inform the next "final solution" for public square.
One last thing...bit off topic...Why are so many people so completely against the idea of imploding the Cuyahoga Counter Services Building...now without me giving my opinion (tear it down), you can't help but find it humorous that people would get so upset about tearing down a building designed by Marcel Breuer....I mean, come on, it wasn't that long ago we imploded Daniel Burnams' Cuyahoga Building (to make way for the Sohio building...later renamed BP) , which was arguably a more significant building (being the first structure in Cleveland with a full metal frame). Not to mention we also imploded the building next to it, the Williamson building, which when it constructed in 1900, was Cleveland's tallest building. Not that I am saying we MUST tear it down...just do not rule it out as an option because you are "sure" you could save 10, 20 , or 30 million dollars by just doing a more simple renovation...sidenote...10,20, or 30 million...anyone else see humor in the ridiculous difference between each of those figures quoted in the Plain Dealer article....