Love the concept, but Connective implies some sense of a natural path...and the "L" shaped designs I saw at SU's Architecture School, well, they avoid certain parts of Syracuse.

Big missed opportunity there.
 

Unfortunately, though, geography's against you on this one. The only path that wouldn't be an L-shape between the university and downtown is Adams Street, and I don't see that as a corridor unless and until I-81 comes down. (You could argue Harrison Street also, but, same problem.)

There is a committee considering considering that move, but we're looking at (realistically) 10 years before the highway is physically removed, traffic is rerouted, and development is possible.

To me, anything that encourages flow from SU to downtown can only be a good thing in terms of economic revitalization.
 

i disagree completely. i think the geography is exactly what demands it.

since we'd run right into 81, we'd solve that challenge as well.

instead the current L configuration ignores the poverty of that area, its connection to crime in the university area, and the current condition of 81.

imagine for a moment that a designer looked at 81, and decided to take that challenge headon, instead of taking the easy, non-logical way around. same goes for the poverty there.

so there's the problem. nobody sees that path as a corridor because of 81. nobody ever will until somebody tackles the challenge.
 

and the portion before adams street. walk directly out of the new law school...down the hill past brewster (sp?) and boland, and you hit the exact reason why designers politically corrected themselves the other way.

they chickened out!
 

On that last bit, actually, I think we have to remember that both ends of the path are important – while we want to get the university students downtown, we also want to get the rest of the city up to the hill, with an eye toward commerce. All the commerce is on Crouse, Marshall and University, so the corridor really needs to reach that part of campus.

But for the sake of argument...

Let's hear it. Use Adams Street. You don't get to tear down any buildings or parking lots, or repurpose any buildings that are in use, but you can use existing parks and what's available along the way. And you can alter the existing roadway any way you wish.

Money is no object, but traffic (realistically) is, so if you reroute any traffic (say, make Adams two-way), you have to figure out what to do with any bottlenecks you create.

So, what does the corridor look like?
 

What were the parameters for the design teams? The same as yours? Or could they rework buildings, etc? :)

Like I said, I love the concept. My point is that the natural inclination would be to walk/bike/bus from Marshall Street to Armory Square, basically. And that the design teams avoided that direct route for a reason. Or a few, which are the primary causes of the divide. So we either put a bandaid on the wound, or actually heal the problem.

I google to find the design parameters (it's only fair that any suggestion I make stay consistent with the original rules). I couldn't find anything specific...do you know where to find that info?
 

I haven't seen the design guidelines, but I'm willing to bet no one's saying go ahead and take whatever's on your route by eminent domain and/or imagine that owners are naturally going to significantly alter their properties.

City parking lots are probably up for grabs (as long as parking needs are filled elsewhere), and city parks can be used for any public purpose (i.e., you can put stuff there, but it can't be students-only; you have to let everyone in).

I think the fact that Adams St. is one-way and it would take a major infrastructure change to make it two-way, and the fact that we're probably a good 7-10 years from pulling I-81 down (if it happens) are other barriers that naturally kept people away from that route (that, and Clinton St., the other leg of the Adams St. route into Armory Square is also one-way in the wrong direction).
 

i'll try to find the design guidelines, as those would be a fair standard to apply any recommendations against.

but for starters, the natural path from marshall street to downtown does not run through the center for excellence. the natural flow from campus and marshall street is right through the areas that the design teams avoided because they saw only issues, not opportunities.

sean kirst today posted a comment from cantor, that in a best case scenario, she'd like to see the elevated section of 81 come down. that'd be first on my list.

second, even if 81 had to stay, that's no reason not to follow the natural route, that most students and community members would prefer to follow (and nevermind the huge amount of energy (wasted) by the longer path through the CoE...and i love the CoE by the way)... that leads to my second big point. tie into the existing public infrastructure (the greenest strategy)...here, the train. brighten/develop the hubs. first, up at Syracuse...give students a reason to jump on the train by the dome... Second, downtown...public parks, independent coffee shops, retail...more warehouse concept ideas. so the train itself becomes a primary component of the corridor.

for biking and walking paths from marshall/university...even adams street is a little far out of the direct connection between armory and the campus. most direct seems to be a line from campus/marshall street through the road south of adams, basically that area of brewster/boland and university hospital. do something there...so adams can stay a direct conduit to the university (keeping in mind any increased focus on the train will also alleviate traffic).

there's a huge amount of concrete area under the 81 bypass where you can either head up adams or split to come up esf. so that's probably where i'd put my path... best case, you knock 81 down. if not, you create some type of green pedestrian-safe passages that avoid the busiest part of adams because you're bringing people along the backside of the hospitals from the university (not down the top of adams). you could even leave 81 alone and bring them downtown behind the 81 offramp.

that'd hit some of the root causes of the divide between the university and downtown...instead of taking a meandering, energy-intensive path that's longer than anybody would intuitively want to walk.

when i looked at a few of the corridor concepts, i saw snowmobiles next to cross country skiers, joggers, cars... complete fantasy, and not one that really made any sense.
 

You're absolutely right – some of the submitted designs are entirely unrealistic. And even a combination of the best elements available from all the designs probably isn't going to truly handle it.

I still think that until I-81 comes down – and I think we need something like the Connective Corridor in place earlier than that removal is going to happen – the safest and most useful route is the L-shape students were asked to design (it also happens to be the route I bike when I'm riding between downtown and the university, as there's no way I'm taking that Adams St. hill on my Schwinn – especially with all the traffic trying to get onto 81 at the bottom).

I am, however, glad there are people thinking of alternatives, and seeing this connection as important.

Do we get to learn who you are?
 

anything connecting the university and downtown is a fantastic thing. to me, it's partly an opportunity-meets-reality thing. that said, the biggest dreams are best. but random fantasies (snowmobiles next to ice skaters), i'd argue, don't help...especially when there's some tremendously inspiring possibilities that are easily achievable.

but, really, i'm (hopefully) only offering construction thoughts...not criticism. there's enough of that already.

so taking your thought, i agree...and wonder why a corridor only has one path. the train, i think, is essential to any student/city connection. it's already there, a great "green" alternative, and with some investment on the university side, it could easily attract students from the quad for a short trip downtown (students who may not want to take the bus from campus all the way past the CoE to just go to armory square). so maybe the corridor is best a series of interconnected paths. for bike riders not wanting to tackle the back side of ESF/SU's law school route, you can use the CoE branch. but for those making a quick trip downtown, the train's available...along with a heated, enclosed stop up by the university. plan in the flexibility of adding to the trail when 81 comes down...

so the concept's probably best described as "non-linear"...the designs i saw are linear, point a to point b to point c, and then back again. what if you could get from point a to point c, in half the time, and at half the energy cost?

that makes sense to me, especially considering the purpose of the corridor being to convince students to use it.

about me, i just don't have a blogger or other id. and i'm best behind-the-behind-the-scenes, for a few reasons. though i may start yet another local blog (it'd be my first), and definitely would love to listen to the local CNY bloggers ideas that you, sean and the others described. definitely a great thing...
 

Anonymous --

I want to thank you for chiming in. Any conversation that pushes the city forward, in my opinion, is worth having.

As for starting a blog, I can only encourage it. The more local voices we have, the better. And if you're looking for advice, including on how to stay (either relatively or completely) anonymous while blogging, please do e-mail us (there's a link at the top of this page). [Note that this will give this blog's writers your e-mail address, so if you have indentifying information in your address, consider a hotmail or yahoo account with an ID that doesn't identify you).
 

i'm not worried so much about anonymity in the smaller stuff...just more about not broadcasting "me" on any blog i'd do (mostly due to a few clients i represent locally).

thanks for the offer. and i agree, the conversation that you guys are having is long overdue, and definitely welcome.