FOR CONSIDERATION - CUDC Quarterly 1:2 - Winter 2001

Evaluating Proposals for a New Convention Center

In the last few months there has been a lot of media coverage of plans to replace Cleveland’s antiquated convention center. As is often the case when a development project involves massive sums of money and has the potential to be a major political triumph (or fiasco) for its sponsors, articles on this issue have tended to focus on questions about the financial and/or political viability of one or another proposal. The problem has been further complicated by proposals to "bundle" the convention center project with a project for a lakefront amusement park. As a result, not much thought has been given to the design merits of specific convention center proposals. Here, then, are a few questions that should be in the back of everyone’s mind as the debate continues:

One of downtown Cleveland’s perennial problems is the tendency to create separate "nodes" of activity, all of them tending to compete with each other. Since infrastructure connections are an expensive way to fix this problem–and an ineffective one, if the RTA Waterfront Line is any evidence–can we expect the new convention center to help unify downtown, rather than creating another competing node ?

Another of Cleveland’s enduring challenges is the lack of connection between the central business district and the lakefront. If the convention center is located anywhere near the lakefront it should be expected to contribute to solving this problem.

Convention centers often are treated as if they exist only for business people who live in a hermetically sealed world of airports, hotels and meeting rooms. This is why they can be sited successfully (if to little social good) in edge cities near airports. Can a convention center do more than just enhance the tourist economy? Which proposal maximizes spin-off development opportunities that enhance the quality of living and working in downtown?

If it is decided to abandon the current facility under the Mall and build anew, then what happens to it? Can we afford simply to throw away a large facility in the heart of the city, or can we expect a plan for recycling the existing convention center under the Mall? A plan for imaginative reuse of the adjoining Public Auditorium would be a big bonus, and surely should be part of any proposal to build the convention center elsewhere.

Convention centers must be highly accessible to travellers. At the same time, they need ample space for shipping and receiving. Reconciling these requirements on a tight site is a real challenge, but one that must be met. A successful proposal will have to achieve easy pedestrian access to hotels and shopping, while allowing for safe and efficient freight access. We should consider how these conflicting access requirements are resolved and how well the proposals promote transit use and pedestrian activity.

Convention centers are–like airports and hospitals–one of those very large modern building types that almost always are obsolete as soon as they open. Cleveland has needed to update its convention facilities at least every 30 years since the Public Auditorium was built, and that pace is only going to speed up. Is there a way that a new convention center can be sited and designed with expansions and technological upgrades in mind?