327

To anyone who wants a sandbox in the Flats: I won't stand in your way. But I solemnly pray that it's temporary. This land was NOT unused until they tore down the urban environment that had stood there in some form for 200 years. It was for many people the symbol and the highlight of this city. If replacing Old River Road with open grass and a patch of sand is progress... then I'm Ronald McDonald. I'm down with sand at the Childrens Museum. I'm down with sand at Edgewater, Mentor, Huntington, you name it. But it seems like only yesterday that we were talking about how that new tower and hotel would look surrounded by brick buildings. When I look at that Toronto picture, my eyes go right past the sand to the towers in the background. I do not hate sand. I like it. But when I think of the Great Wheel of East Bank Plans spinning and spinning and spinning... and stopping on sand... I become despondent. I hope with every ounce of my being that we're not seriously contemplating replacing a world famous historical district with volleyball courts and a grassy mound. We already have those. I'm beginning to wonder if we'll ever have the Flats again. This is how it starts... someone proposes a temporary "greenspace" and then there are protests if anyone wants to take it away. When was the last time anything was built here on top of "greenspace?" Of greater concern-- why do these new renderings only include Phase 1? http://www.flatseast.com/ Those mature trees in the picture don't look temporary. Maybe that's just a combination of artistic license and saving money on renderings.

Hoopy frood. That means yes, by the way, I just decided to use "hoopy frood" instead of yes.

What I can't believe is that so many are still reading this thread. Apparently people really care about the Flats. Or beaches... not sure. Those Europe pix look awesome. They're not beaches at all though, unless beach means "anything whatsoever that's near water." As far as the law is concerned, a beach refers to where water actually meets the land. Artificial barriers like we have unbeachify the situation. I would note that in these pictures of Toronto, Zurich, and Berlin, nobody has attempted to mimic anything resembling a sandy beach... they've developed their riverfront in a way that makes sense for their riverfront. I would also agree there's really no beach in the Flats proposal at all based on that rendering. But again... please do not ever jump in the water here. From a liability perspective (which is how I'm trained to think), it would not be prudent to simulate a sandy beach in the Flats because we already have a problem with people jumping in. Folks who don't understand the situation could be misled by beach-like conditions. Also, I recommend against putting a swingset and merry-go-round in the middle of the CSX railyard.

That 16% figure helps to keep it in perspective, but I'd like to know where those 16% are, because I doubt there are more than 2-3 places in the nation that need this sort of help like Youngstown does. If any of this money went to the sun belt, I think people here are justifiably livid.

Because once something gets designated as "family friendly greenspace" it seems to become so much harder to ever build on it. Isn't that the reason the Shaker Green Line can never be extended, because there's a park at the end of it? These things matter, in fact it may be critical to get them resolved now and not later. We want to make sure we pursue the highest and best use for this land. (That, in my mind, would closely resemble xu9697's Toronto pic but much more compact. That pic is of a plaza with a boardwalk, which seems appropriate for the Flats... there's no beach in that picture... there's not an industrial port in it either... love the residential towers) And several people have indeed suggested that we construct some sort of permament beach. Also, the discussion itself has been enjoyable.

Yes, they're putting up two new buildings.

It's not that big of a deal. And I'm not anti-beach generally. But we're talking about a specific plot with specific characteristics. This isn't a former dock or a site near a dock, this *IS* an operating dock. You can't go in the water here at all. This is the same logic behind not putting a "mountain bike" facility on flat land along East 55th. As shs96 noted, people are already tempted to go swimming here, and most of them die. They die. shs96 probably saved some people's lives by not letting them try this. And we wanna put a beach there? Illogical, Captain.

I am in no way suggesting that we don't build this. But I'd prefer we avoid saying "TA DA!" with a half-measure that sours the market on our whole concept. Patience, grasshoppers.

It's temporary and a great use of the space in the interim. And if they can do it in Chicago, Toronto, NYC, and Phily why cant this be done in Cleveland? If it's temporary it's as good as any other use for empty land. But I do hope we eventually move forward with re-urbanizing the flats. And I could be wrong, but I doubt these other cities have beaches right up on their shipping channels. I mean, you're specifically not supposed to be in the water here. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of a beach? Cleveland has well-located beaches that tons of people enjoy. But this is a... counterintuitive... location for one.

Again, this isn't a natural riverfront nor can it be. It's walled off with steel. There's no need to replace sand because the water doesn't touch the land here. The end of the Cuyahoga is primarily a shipping channel. We can't have it all, and there's no sense in having a halfass version of something more appropriate for Miami when we can focus on what's apporpriate for our own climate. Think about the #1 gripe about the stadium location-- prime land rendered usable 8 times a year. You put a beach here and you just threw out nine months of usefulness.

They're two different things. China has entire industries set up for export alone. Even if we aren't gonna have truly hi-speed rail for years, other states are likely to, and we can either let them make the parts or get going on that ourselves. Ohio may not have passenger rail right now, but it has thousands and thousands of trained machinists.

^ I get it, you're kidding... right?

I don't think we should "start up" with something only marginally marketable or competitive. That could easily kill any public support momentum we can engender between now and then. If you're going to do something, do it right. I would rather wait a couple additional years and then hold a grand opening for a service we can be proud of. By offering up something that even transit afficianados say "meh" about, we run the risk of permananently spoiling the brand. On another note, I wish we were hearing more about making Ohio the center of rail manufacturing. I think that's a huge oppurtunity and it's custom tailored for this state, but the window won't stay open forever. If we sit on our hands, we'll lose that opportunity to a more progressive and coordinated locale.

Yup. But it's just a placeholder, no?

I would abolutely love to have WOW, or AT&T... but they both refuse to do business in Shaker Square.

What about the people in them? Yikes I forgot all about that! No, seriously... many of these structures are empty and have been for some time. And the whole idea is to spur construction of more desirable and era-appropriate housing. These would be roughly simultaneous processes, or at least overlapping. I'm not suggesting we bulldoze 100 blocks, count to ten, then start thinking about what to put there. What I'm suggesting is very similar to the Youngstown 2010 plan, except that Cleveland actually needs new housing... just not in addition to what's already here.

We're on to something here. Suppose Cleveland were to bulldoze mass acreage of woodframe shotguns and duplexes... something magical might happen with that ol' supply and demand curve. It might even give us more ROI than all the sports complexes combined. Out with the old, in with the new.

Music to my ears.

What I see in Dallas and Charlotte is rail getting built and zero people asking for BRT instead. Tear their streets up to build BRT and see how they react. If we want West Shore rail, it seems like the best way to obtain that would be to focus our resources on West Shore rail, instead of a parallel and redundant BRT apparatus. In that sense, Clifton BRT is like Buckeye BRT. It would compete, 1/2 mile away, with a rail line that we either have or want. As for the EC... its merit is a frequent topic for complete strangers who use it. I know this because I ride it often. People randomly start conversations about how dumb they think it is. For example, they universally do not enjoy waiting for the bus in an artificial wind tunnel. They would rather wait at a normal bus stop with the old style shelters. It is in this context that I do most of my "no no, see, the feds paid for it, this thing did not cause you to lose [that service you lost]." Of course, now I've discovered that that's not entirely true and that I've been lying to people. I've defended it over and over again, even though I don't like it, because I support RTA and I want the general public to do so as well. That said, I hate the Euclid Corridor and I hate BRT. It is fundamentally flawed at a conceptual level.

I understand your motivation, I think, but I fail to see how a transit system that *nobody* wants would benefit Clifton. Where is the public support for BRT? People turn out in droves to support circulators. People laugh at the Euclid Corridor.

Upon reading the letter, I strongly agree with Dennis. I think he stated the case well. Every dollar spent on BRT, regardless of source, is a dollar misspent. There is no sense in tearing up Clifton for bus! infrastructure! at the same time that actual transit service to Lakewood is withering. That has the makings of a public relations disaster. RTA needs to focus on three things: 1) Rail 2) Maintaining existing services 3) Rail

Observation of the year, so far...

I'm a pretty harsh judge and I don't think this design is that bad. The criticisms are valid, it's a bit sterile and it makes no attempt to invoke the history of its surroundings, but at least this is a step up from those giant ice cubes we've had proposed recently. As noted, it might look better once surrounded by brick structures. I like that it's more than just vast sheer surfaces of uniform nothingness, like so many of those E9th jobbies. It gives your eyes different things to do as you scan over it.

Will do. I imagine you'll do the same. This is a good thing, on both counts. Let's remember what got us here-- Ohio and downtown Cleveland are poised for growth that will surprise a whole lot of people. We're at the forefront of something pretty awesome.

Feel free to advance the discussion at any time. Either one of them.