cadmen

Interesting. Although Prince will have around 20% of the employees of this new conglomerate its existing market cap must be pretty substantial since it's the one doing the buying. Wouldn't it be great if they moved here since the two companies they are buying are located in NEO. Wishful thinking.

^ Ain't that the truth.

I had assumed that substation was owned by a utility. If the Clinic owns it it would fall on them to pay for any relocation costs. I'm not sure they'll want to incur that cost even if it relocates an eyesore. Although if that part of Euclid is developed as planned then pressure will mount to move it. It's a small thing but something to watch for in the future.

Repurposing the lower deck on the bridge has long been supported by us urbanophiles. I would venture to say that anyone who has made the walk from one end to the other has come to the conclusion that it is an amazing space that must be opened to the public. How and what it ultimately looks like is open to conjecture but those are just the details. We can all agree that it should be opened. One detail that l think must be included is the two stations. kjp mentioned that for now at least they would be bypassed. Those stations add another historical element to an historic bridge. Plus they're just cool. Walking through them takes you back to the halcyon days of urban subway travel, something we never got to enjoy in our city. Opening the bridge is the most important thing but if we're going to do it let's do it right and include those stations too.

Ok forget the bridge. It's too late to change it. Here's what l propose and l'm only half joking. Since we have shown over the last 30-40 years that we have no clue how to design let alone develop a waterfront plan we need to create a taskforce comprised of people who have the authority to act. Then send them around the country on a fact finding trip. They need to see what works (and doesn't) and also find out what steps are necessary to actually fund and build a successful waterfront. No shame in admitting you don't know what you're doing. We don't have to re-invent the wheel here. Just copy what works.

Hell of a list ya got there Larry. Nice summation.

Come on guys. That bridge is butt ugly. The only positive thing that can be said about it is, yes, it does do the primary work of a bridge. But is that what we're looking for here? The minimum? I know we're not Paris but do we have to settle for the lowest common denominator, functionality? Oh never mind. I give up.

Well of course you can walk across an ugly bridge just as well as a beautiful one. You can also drink a rancid glass of milk when you are parched but if you had a choice and a nice cold beer was also there for the taking which one would you choose? Aside from the esthetic's I don't mean to minimize the connectivity with this bridge but it pains me to say it's s a little like connecting nothing to nothing. I'm still holding out for real lakefront development. Based on past history l'm not sure we have it in us and it's probably not anyone's fault. This town can only pull off so much development and we have done quite alot in the last few decades.

That little harbor bridge is so ugly, so ungainly we would have been better off if nothing had been built there. What a joke. In the grand scheme of things l suppose l shouldn't get too upset. It is a rather small project after all, ugly as it may be. But l would like to know the back story. How exactly did what was supposed to be an elegant bridge turn into such an ugly duckling? I suppose you start with the primary reason (money) and then stir in the usual incompetent goverment beurocrat's, add a third rate architectural design. And finally we have to include the element that every Cleveland development MUST have...an excessive amount of delay. Mix them all together and we come up with that little tumor. Well done people. Well done.

I didn't realize the 2 projects had the same developer. Maybe they cut their teeth on much smaller projects and that's how they made their reputation. If that's the case they should stick to what they know how to do and don't waste everyone's time with pie in the sky stuff. We already deal with enough developer/political bullsh*t in this town.

There was a time in the late 80's and early to mid 90's when the Flats was as happening a place as anywhere between New York and Chicago. If you weren't there it's almost impossible to comprehend. Bumper to bumper traffic. Ten's of thousands of people in the club's and walking the streets. It was amazing but oh so shortlived. Sort of like one of those 19th century western boom towns. Here today and gone tomorrow. Actually the new Flats is nothing like the old Flats. The old one was organic and real. The new one is a sanitized corporate environment. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Of course there are things l like about the new Flats. The main Flats East Bank building is pretty nice. Especially the big neon sign. I love the boardwalk and the most recent construction is really cool. But taken as a whole the old Flats was so much more appealing, to me at least, than the new Flats.

I am so sick of the unenlightened, clueless and general incompetence of Ohip leaders. Our movers and shakers can't seem to do either. This must be what happens when our best and brightest seek out climes more conducive to getting things done. Leaving us with the dolts. I'm still here so l guess l'll have to lump myself in with the rest of the laggards. Except l'm not a politician nor a developer.

That is great news for core cities. Unfortunately that's not the end of it. This ruling will be appealed. With all the problems kickstarting urban economies post-covid cities' ability to continue to tax workers where they are employed as opposed to where they (temporarily?) work will be crucial to their survival.

I like the MetroPark's plan. Especially the convoluted shoreline and the irregular island. It reminds me of something l thought about after my first visit to Toronto. I was surprised to see the city had island's. l thought that would look great on our lakefront. If nature didn't create them then man could using dredging's from the river. We're already doing that now creating new land at Burke that no one uses. Since we need to dispose of the dredging anyway rather than continuing to create more shoreline why not create something else. I'm sure the engineering is more complicated and more expensive but just consider the positives. ISLANDS! Right off downtown. Recreation, views, water taxi's, restaurants/bars. That is way,way more bang for the buck if we're already creating land anyway. It's an economic multiplier. We're probably spending 80% of the cost to create land along the shoreline right now. Why not spend a little more to create land (islands) that people will actually use. The resultant economic growth will probably pay for the additional cost. It's a no brainer really. Here's one more reason to do it. I've been boating in Puge Sound, the Chesapeake Bay and the Massachusetts islands and what do they all have that our shoreline doesn't? Something other than a flat boring coast. My dad always had a boat (docked it at Edgewater) and while he loved boating after a few runs back and forth along our shoreline l was bored silly. Same ol' same ol'. We'll always have a boring shoreline but at least some islands off downtown plus the river will maximize our limited assets. Frankly l think development along the river is our best choice to create something really great. If/when that ever happens, coupled with islands off downtown we could have something quite special. We're already developing. Why not develop in a way that enhances what we already have?

A decade?? Christ. Bill Maher is always talking about the expense and difficulty in building things in America today. Perfect example.

My first recollection of Cleveland urban development goes back to Erieview. I was a child and l was hooked. Despite the impressive number of projects completed there are these two unicorns that just can't seem to get any traction. The first is the combined landbridge/lakefront development. The second is a TowerCity rail station with multiple Amtrak routes. A CVSR would be icing on the cake. I get that there are many reasons (financial, political, real leadership) why these two projects may remain unicorns. I have had the rug pulled out from under me so many times l've stopped counting so at this point l'll just remain an interested observer. But l'll still dream and maybe someday we'll actually see one of these unicorns in the flesh. And kjp, thanks for all your tireless efforts in promoting train travel in our little piece of wilderness. It is much appreciated.

Crackerjack journalism

While l love the design l agree with the comments here - adding some color would have been icing on the cake. But l think the reason we don't use color for building finishes is it's against the law or uh... something like that right? I think l saw a Cleveland beige in a box of crayola crayons so that must be it.

If this whole process wasn't so sad it would be funny. You know the old saying "A camel is a horse designed by commettie." In this case the original design was just Ok but after going through the design review process (including comments by local "activists") the end product is just worse. The biggest problem as l see it is this is not a simple one time disappointment. This seems to happen everytime. Who are these "experts" on the committee and how did they get on the board? I've been reading this site for years and l think this board is more insightful and more understanding of not just architecture but urban context. And l could be wrong but aren't most of us just interested amateurs? How is it we have better awareness than the experts? WTF?

Right.

I don't blame George at all. He was smart enough to see just a little down the road and snapped up a property that will be worth quite a bit more than he paid for it. That's business. It's just unfortunate that making a smart business decision can sometimes crash headon into a community good. That's our system so...

I didn't realize how much longer one section of the V was than the other. What an impressive building. And it will only get better if the second phase is built. My only complaint is they are not for sale units. I'm no expert but that seems like a missed opportunity there. Guess the economic's weren't feasible.

What a wonderful addition to the waterfront. Kudos to the design team for creating and old fashioned look with a contemporary twist. We need more of that and less of Kenect.

Folks, that corner lot was bought by George for one purpose and one purpose only and that's to hold it for ransom. He has no intention of developing it. Once the hillside is stabilized, and the park begins to take shape his property will have a spotlight shined on it. Development/park land all around it and he's holding a bag of gold. Reminds me of one of those movies from the 1930's where a property owner holds the last piece of land that a developer needs to build his dream project. But unlike those movies this time the holdout is not a decent soul trying to hold onto a simple way of life in the way of a greedy developer. This time the owner will use his property to extort the greatest $$ and he doesn't care that he is standing in the way of the greater community good.

Yes, if the trees are located on the plot of land just east of the existing buildings then at some point they would have to come down. BUT, as was mentioned, who knows if/when phase II gets built? And granted some would have to come down to reconfigure the road but is it necessary to cut them all now? The trees near Euclid could have stayed until at least phase all was a done deal.