Dino

What you are suggesting is exactly what growing cities do. It's what Cleveland did in the early 1900's. They could do it then, because the population was growing rapidly, and as soon as those lots were created, they would be filled up. That's not the case in Cleveland today. The population in the City is still shrinking, and regionally has been pretty stagnant. Cleveland just doesn't have the type of growth that justifies that amount of public investment. That's why I think you need commitments from major stakeholders, like the Browns, Amtrak, RRHOF, etc. It doesn't have to be one developer, but I do think there needs to be a critical mass to get movement on the lakefront. Agreed!- which is why I don't think we should worry about the lakefront at all right now. We have enough work to do just to maintain and rebuild the core. SHW is great and all, but keep in mind, they are relocating from within downtown, meanwhile other companies are still leaving downtown (Medical Mutual). These residential project are great, but they aren't even keeping pace with the loss of office workers we've seen in the last 10-20 years. I think the focus should be on more base hits, meaning adaptive reuse, urban infill, and that sort of thing.

I don't think the Haslams or Browns alone were driving this. But I do think developments like these require interest and commitments from several groups to get off the ground- entities rarely embark on plans like this without buy in from others. With a developer no longer committed, the Browns signalling interest in non-lakefront sites really undercuts the whole thing in my opinion. Some of the most valuable, high profile, and accessible sites downtown have been vacant for decades (I'm looking at you Jacobs lot!) and are only now starting to get interest from developers. I don't think improving access to the lakefront guarantees anything gets built at all.

I agree that those two projects are key to developing the lakefront, but here's why I don't think they will happen for a long time without the stadium (or another extremely compelling stakeholder to invest in new development). 1. These projects will cost in the hundreds of millions of dollars. 2. If a developer pays for it, they need to see a return on investment. Being on the lake is nice, but that alone isn't going to raise rents enough to offset the investment. The amount of development would have to be massive to bear those costs and still see a return. Hudson Yards is a good example of the scale. 3. If a government is going to spend that kind of money, they need a relative guarantee of new development (as in approved plans and financing commitments) and usually a compelling civic benefit. I think the recent lakefront plan with the Browns, a potential new transportation hub, and the promise of parks, and residential towers, was starting to become a compelling case. But I don't see anyone investing this much on speculation of new development. 4. Even with the Browns stadium, a master plan, and a seasoned developer on board recently, nothing came of it. I think that demonstrates how complicated and difficult doing all of this is. It takes a ton of money and a ton of cooperation with many stakeholders. 5. There's too many other "lower hanging fruit" projects downtown. If I'm the City or County, or if I'm a developer, I'd be focused on developing sites that don't require such a heavy lift. SHW spin off in the WH District, Flats East Bank, Nucleus site, Centenial, Landmark backfill, are examples. Not to mention all the opportunities in the neighborhoods. Those aren't slam dunks either, even without necessitating massive infrastructure packages.

Scrapping a 25 year old stadium seems like a shame to me, but that seems to be the way this is going; a lot people say the stadium was built poorly. Plus I think having a major stakeholder like the Browns on the lake is the only way to leverage infrastructure improvements. So if the Browns leave the lakefront, I would think new development north of the Shoreway is a long ways off. That said, putting the lakefront on hold for a while wouldn't be the worst news in my opinion. It allows focus to remain on areas of downtown that are already in progress. Areas like Flats East Bank, Bedrock Riverfront, SHW spin off, filling in parking lots downtown already have a lot of momentum and a lot of investment. I'd rather see those visions realized before focus goes to the lakefront. It's another reason I kind of like the Wolstein site for a new stadium. It would help fill in the urban core.

^This sort of got off of the lakefront development topic, but if someone knows how to move it to where it needs to be go ahead. I want stay on the good side of the administrators!

Just for fun, I was curious how the stadium would fit on that site. It fits a lot easier than I thought.

^Maybe, or just rerouting. Either way it's easier to do that than re-route the Shoreway as has been discussed.

This isn't the Lakefront, but has anyone considered the Wolstein Center site (Prospect south the I-90, E. 18th to E.22nd.) for a new stadium? I would think that site might make a lot of parties happy is the site of the Wolstein Center. Prospect south the I-90, E. 18th to E.22nd. Here's a few reasons why 1. Majority of that land is owned by CSU and ODOT; this could make land acquisition a little easier 2. CSU wants to replace Wolstein anyway with a smaller facility. Maybe that gets worked in as part of the deal 3. Haslams would be happy because it is just outside PHS, meaning there's already bars and restaurants there with room for more development 4. Facility could include a platform over the highway. This is more feasible/less complicated than the land bridge, but still helps stitch the city back together 5. Mayor Bibb should be happy; he can tout this a boon for the Central neighborhood. I think its a compromise between downtown and neighborhood development 6. Great access via highways and public transit, centrally located in the City, brings more activity to PHS, CSU, Tri-C

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Browns_relocation_controversy Technically, the Browns never moved. They were deactivated and Baltimore was granted an expansion team. But to get back on topic, the tweets seem to be from Comprehensive Zoning Services which is an environmental/surveying company, so I'd guess the news is about site selection for a new stadium. They consider it bad news, so I would think that might mean potentially abandoning downtown.

The Tower City Riverfront plan is 35 acres, potentially 12 high rises, new parks, built on top of/around active train tracks, and requiring new roads and riverfront bulkheads. I have no idea on the cost of all this, but it's gotta be at least a few billion dollars. In what world is this a project of a relatively limited size? For reference, Hudson Yards in NYC is 28 acres, 16 buildings, also on top of train tracks and they are projecting 22 years from development plan approvals to end of construction (2005-2027). This development has larger buildings and probably some other challenges because it's in NYC, but it also has the benefit of being one of the world's strongest real estate markets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Yards_(development) I think if the Riverfront plan is realized in 15-20 years, it will be an amazing accomplishment!

I don't think they have definitive tenants yet, but I do think this is more than just speculation. They amassed a ton of land, hired an international architect, are doing extensive due diligence and are going through the lengthy City approval and public review process for the Riverfront plan. These are concrete steps towards a real development. Doesn't mean it will happen, but I think it does mean there's some credibility behind this. Bonus- Rocket Mortgage would be an ideal fit for one of those 500' towers. Also- I see why Nucleus might be developed first, but If I were Bedrock, I would prioritize the Riverfront. If they can get City buy-in for the infrastructure, this creates another 5 or 6 potential projects that will benefit their surrounding properties. Nucleus is shovel-ready, but wouldn't really solve a lot of long term obstacles for Bedrock or the City. But hey, I would love a 500' tower regardless of the site!

What stands out to me from the article, more than the renderings (although those are awesome), are terms like schedule, development agreements, City Council approval, traffic impact assessment, etc. This is not being discussed as a "pie-in-the-sky" sort of plan. This sounds like a developer taking concrete steps towards making something happen. I know we're still a long way off, and maybe it won't happen, but I'm happy someone's actually taking a real swing.

I don't understand it either because if the buildings are too polluted to save, then I would think the soil is also contaminated and I doubt they will be doing soil remediation. It can't be more polluted than a battery plant, or auto factory, and those have been renovated successfully.

I think this is on Commerce between 43rd and 45th. This demo would really be a shame-and I don't say that about all demos. There's a number of projects proposed or happening in the somewhat general vicinity and this neighborhood finally has a sliver of hope. The buildings don't look like they are in bad shape. This could be a great historic tax credit project like Mueller Lofts or Warner-Swasey. If you just demo'd the buildings in the middle of the block for parking (and kept the buildings along 43rd) this would be a great apartment complex.

In 1990, Sherwin Williams proposed this tower. Credit to KJP; I took this from one of his articles

Is someone actually pursuing the Power Plant project or is this just a speculative "what if"? I can't imagine the cost to demo and clean up a power plant in order to make it suitable for residential, but there's no denying it would be a cool project.

I'm sure you've reported this before, but can you remind us all of what their current and possible future space needs are?

Let's not forget that Bedrock is also in the middle of a $1.4B construction project (Hudson's) and is also actively acquiring land in Detroit. So, yeah, they have a lot going on now. But also, The Riverfront is going to be an ongoing process for several years. The master planning and infrastructure phases don't take a ton of staff or money (relatively speaking of course). I think they can handle a shovel ready development at Nucleus while they are prepping the Riverfront for new development. No matter what, I think Bedrock buying the Nucleus site means we're getting closer to seeing construction there.

Bummer. iIthought it was a creative take on Cleveland history. Way to burst my bubble :)

I think the name is kind of clever. The Flats were once home to the mighty "Silver Mountains" of our industrial glory. The mountains are no longer there, but there are still dozens of "Silver Hills" along the Cuyahoga River. What I haven't seen in the Flats, though, are any Thunderbirds.

I'm as cynical as the next Clevelander, but I disagree with many here that this is pie in the sky planning, and I disagree that public financing will be an obstacle to making this happen. First, Public/Private partnerships for major development is the norm these days. Public money/participation was integral in RoMoFiHo renovations, Progressive Field renovations, SHW HQ, the Convention Center, Downtown Hilton, etc. Not to mention the historic tax credits and TMUD that helped many projects. Why would anyone think public financing is a non-starter? Second, public financing is a much easier proposition when a project has a direct economic benefit. That's why these projects got public money and parks and bike lanes continue to struggle. Third, Bedrock isn't the type of developer to use a shotgun approach. They have a long track record of successful urban development. They own the land, have a ton of money, and they've been completing these types of projects for years. That is why this feels very different from other master plans to me. Call me crazy, but I'm hopeful that this will result in something big.

They better hurry! Summer is almost over!

The land where that building is shown is owned by the West Side Market Tenants Association. Land at the corner of Gehring and Abbey looks to be privately owned as well. Looks like the developer only owns the small corner at Gehring and 25th. I would love to see both sides of Gehring get developed though. Hopefully it's only a matter of time.

^ It's not perfect. But that park they suggest at the Port should make up for it! Haha.

Agree to disagree. TPL has a park score of 23; I found a stat that Cleveland is 33rd in acres/resident, but all of these are misleading because they are looking at the entire City or region. I was talking about the context of our downtown. I happen to think that downtown is well served by nearby parks. Interestingly, TPL has an interactive map that shows where it suggest parks are needed. The downtown lakefront has tiny sections labelled as a moderate priority. https://parkserve.tpl.org/mapping/index.html?CityID=3916000