musky

So what will could this mean for the proposed Port relocation? One of the options they are looking at in their current study is to relocate on a new island north of Whiskey Island. I find it interesting that the Port was not mentioned at all in this article. Also, no mention of the addition of construction debris from the west shoreway downgrade and innerbelt project. The 'clean' debris from those projects would fill in the site more sooner then the date given in the article (I'm guessing).

Wasn't there an elected official from Summit County that made a bunch of press with this idea last year? EDIT: Found this on Brewed Fresh Daily: http://www.brewedfreshdaily.com/2005/02/08/secession-anyone/

Anyone have a list of the reporters that will no longer be there?

It will be a land slide victory in Cleveland/Cuyahoga. It might pass in Columbus. The rest of the hick state will kill it. Yet another reason to secede.

The capping part was never officially part of the plan. It was talked about, but was never in the scope of the plan. This figures, I had just finished reading the billion page plan update this weekend, including all of the options that were taken off the table early on. It could have just been a snowball effect, but from what I saw, they looked at all options (within there limited vision). http://www.innerbelt.org/Innerbelt/Conceptual%20Alternatives%20Study/conceptual%20alternatives%20study.htm Not that it matters now, but these were the section alternatives that were being/not being carried forward as of the middle of August: 12.1 Innerbelt Curve Section Innerbelt Curve Alternative F is selected to be carried forward as a Feasible Alternative analysis phase of the Project. Innerbelt Curve Alternative E is not being carried forward. 12.2 Innerbelt Trench Section The Far Eastern Alignment Alternative, the Chester Avenue (No Payne Avenue) Alternative, and the MidTown Corridor Extension are being carried forward. The Minimum, Western Alignment, and Central Alignment Alternatives are not being carried forward. 12.3 Central Interchange Section the Dual Intersections and Southern Alternatives are selected to be carried forward. The Dedicated, Shared, and Indirect I-77 Connections Alternatives are not being carried forward. 12.4 Central Viaduct Bridge Section The Northern and Southern Hybrid Alternatives are selected to be carried forward. The Widen / Rehabilitate Existing Alternative with Clark Avenue Interchange is not being carried forward. 12.5 Southern Innerbelt Section The Mainline Widening with Jennings Freeway Add Alternative is selected to be carried forward. The Mainline Widening with Jennings Freeway Merge Alternative is not being carried forward. 12.6 C-D Roadways Section The C-D Roadways Relocation Alternative including a Type II noise analysis for the C-D Roadways section, is selected to continue under ODOT’s noise wall and multi-lane reconstruction programs. 12.7 I-77 Access Section The I-77 Access Improvements Alternative is selected to be carried forward. 12.8 West 7th Street Interchange Section The No-Build Alternative is selected. The Fully Directional West 7th Street Interchange Alternative is not being carried forward.

from the WKYC site:

Like this

It makes me think of the scene in Rocky Horror at the end when the giant RKO Radio Tower is on stage.

Was the guy Ed Hauser? The questions regarding Port Relocation and Whiskey Island are expected to be answered very early next year. The current study is about finished. The powers that be are mainly waiting for... wait for it, wait for it... yes you guessed it, the elections to be finished before they start making absolutue statements regarding the port.

I saw the signs today on my way downtown. I like the retro look to them. I can see how many people will not like them much, but those people probably complain about everything and are the smae people who do not like the Cleveland Trust tower :-D Anyway, I could not get my camera out in time, but did see this on WKYC: http://www.wkyc.com/news/rss_article.aspx?ref=RSS&storyid=58072

Wow! I bet "Citizen" Ed Hauser is peeing himself silly. The pedestrian/bike must stay. There are too many people that walk across the current bridge to not consider including this element. And how in the hell does that add thirty million dollars? Yes, a new administration has got to be a better option.

What does everyone think about this cat removal deal Jackson has proposed? I understand there are probably many feral cats out in the city, but is this a good way to spend a million dollars? I read a comment in the paper that suggested if many of the cats were gone, perhaps there would be an increase in the rodent population. Besides, you never hear of a pack of cats attacking mailmen or kids. I wonder if this will become what the garbage can naming rights were to Campbell. Just wondering.

I think this should be discussed here: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=6849.new#new

This was heard at the last Planning Commission meeting (which I have not finished formating yet on my blog). The developer is from New York and claims to have success with this type of project. They will strip and reuse the current building. Engineers have said the superstructure is in excellent condition and is very strong. There will 70 units on 12 floors and they will possibly rebuild/use the restaurant. The project was presented to the Commission so they could get the previously mentioned zoning changed. Although they were not there to present the plan, they did have renderings present that suggested all of the units would have their own balcony. No start/completion date was given, nor was there any cost shown. ****************** EDIT- Moved from here: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=3594.new#new

There is a webcast of the forum right now, if you can get it. I had it for a moment and then it was gone http://urban.csuohio.edu/forum/media/2006/warehouse/webcast/index.html

From Crain's:

The Corlett is on the National Register, but not a Cleveland Historic Landmark. Which means there really is no protection. Feasible is the key word. If somebody provides significant funding for this proposal, then it would likely not be feasible to keep Corlet, unles the funder wanted to keep it, or part of it with the proposed new structure The current Master Plan is getting ready to be updated, most likely by UDC, again. CPSD is no longer using the building. There are no current plans to use it in the near term... or at least not until Euclid Corridor is finished.

Even though all is quiet right now, expect some major action on this and the medical mart to take place almost immediately after the elections - so says a member of the Convention Facilities Authority.

^That very issue has come up within the ranks. The consensus is that Cleveland, let alone CSU, does not need two more theaters of the size proposed (which is not shown - I will post later this week). I wonder if this were built as proposed, what this would say as to the number of theater seats in a particular theater district across the country. (I realize Cleveland is already number two.)

You are correct. They have been ripping them up all sunmmer.

We received the planning study for the Visual Arts Center last week. Here are a few shots of the conceptual proposal. These are basically massing and programing studies. It is not funded and will likely not look like this. However, the university leadership loves it. No cost has been associated with it yet. It is expected in about a month. If the donor who paid for the study would like to contribute significantly to the construction of said building, it would be the second one in the city with his name on it (on two different colleges). As you can see, if anything slightly resembling this concept were built, it would significantly alter the Euclid Corridor landscape in the best of ways. It would likely cause the GS architects/staff to up their game when designing the Student Center. And, yes, this would mean the end of the Corlett Building. Here's hoping it gets built.

Did anybody go to this meeting yesterday?

(Moved from different thread) http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=10771.msg132395#msg132395

This is not new news, but I wanted to give the update from the Planning Commission that shows the approval. From Cleveland vs. The World: http://clevelandplanner.blogspot.com/2006/10/september-15-2006-cleveland-planning.html

I finally saw one of the vehicles in use on Friday driving east on Chester. I presume she was heading to UC.