"Are there alternative investments that would add more to our sustainable economic welfare?"  Greg Studen

Good question, Greg.

Did this come up in the big sustainability pow wow?  Let me guess... uh no.

I haven't seen any dirt being moved or design proposals yet. Are we being presumptuous in saying  "Cleveland's new Convention Center and Med Mart should embody" or are we just caved in to another dumb waste of tax money?

If we were not to spend a billion on medmart and instead put it toward a green city on a blue lake, what would we be paying for? Any opportunity cost suggestions?

PS I prefer a handshake, too, but on this one, I didn't even get an impersonal-like vote.

I believe that David Beach in his "principles for a green convention center" article has already spoken to the concerns raised in the replies of Greg Studen and Rpace. His last two paragraphs, "Connections: Connect to the city and promote transportation alternatives," and "Civic purpose: Create a community center that enlivens the city," speak to what I believe to be vitally important aspects of planning and implementation. I know that airplanes pollute (though they can get much better), and that bringing people here via railroads or electric cars is still more costly (obviously) than "virtual meetings," but I believe that alot of us still prefer a handshake in the flesh.

I agree that the "sustainability bar" should be set high for our public buildings. Our public buildings should reflect our goals and aspirations with great architecture, just look at the quality of our great public buildings from the early twentieth century. They symbolized our city's optimism for the future. We need that again.

Part of looking forward should be new thinking about how convention centers and marts will work in the future. Our public investment should not repeat what has been done in the past but create the new model for disseminating ideas and selling products in the future.

As Greg Studen suggested, virtual meetings will be more commonplace, so the entire center should be designed as a communication studio with networking for distance learning, virtual meetings and broadcast lectures and seminars. The Convention Center/Medical Mart should be viewed as a continuing education center and the international hub for selling medical products. This new business model will be more successful as well as more sustainable.

Greg Studen gstuden@windstream.net

As a follow-up to my previous comment: British author George Monbiot is always interesting and insightful on the issue of climate change. His book "Heat" is one of the best on the subject.

Today I came across an interesting post on his blog:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/may/22/ba-heath...

Monbiot refers to the deep recession in the airline industry, and particularly to massive British Airways losses. He suggests that the decline in air travel may be, and perhaps should be, permanent. "Aviation accounts for 0.78% of total business turnover in the UK. Yet is it responsible for 13% of the country's total greenhouse gas emissions. Any fair pricing of greenhouse gases would make flying prohibitively expensive."

Should we be making large investments in facilities that depend upon the long term continuation of cheap and readily available air travel to be successful?

Greg Studen gstuden@windstream.net

These ideas for a green convention center are all great. This is basic, common-sense green building construction and operating practice--assuming that a convention center should be built in the first place.

I wonder what role convention centers and the whole idea of the convention should play in our planning for a sustainable future.

It could be argued that the current model of the convention is inherently too wasteful of resources to be sustained. Somebody should do a complete life cycle energy and resource analysis of a big convention--maybe this has already been done. All the people who have to fly in, large amounts of materials that have to be moved quickly, hotels, restaurants, massive amounts of waste generated, etc. Sure, it's good for the "economy," but only if you count everything towards GDP. I wonder what a big convention adds to the "sustainable economic welfare" of a community.

Also, the convention business is a zero-sum game. There is a huge amount of competition, and many cities are more attractive to conventioneers than Cleveland. What is the demand nationwide for convention space? Is there room for growth, or are we overbuilt and scrapping for the same dollars? How much public money is spent to subsidize the maintenance and promotion of convention facilities?

Many corporations are cutting way back on conventions and travel in general because of cost. Communications technologies for teleconferencing and "virtual meetings" are evolving rapidly. Isn't this where we should be concentrating our efforts? With the twin problems of climate change and oil depletion rushing towards a crisis, it seems likely that mass air travel will be severely constrained before too long. Big convention centers in second-tier cities like Cleveland may become empty mausoleums.

Maybe the marketers have done their homework and can convincingly show that this project has a high probability of success. However, it can be questioned on the grounds of a broad strategic approach to the sustainability of our city and region. Are there alternative investments that would add more to our sustainable economic welfare?