Ethan

I like this proposal. No skyscraper, but it looks like decent density, and I like the classically styled buildings. This is the only proposal in the article with a picture. From the article, "They’re proposing to demolish the entire Justice Center complex and replace it with eight lower-slung buildings, each of them evoking or replicating a historic structure that once stood in downtown Cleveland. The buildings could include ground-floor retail and restaurants." Further described as "Campus-like" and compromising 1.2 million Sq ft. Of new construction. I like it. I'd prefer all of these beautiful buildings over one shiny glass skyscraper.

It would probably be cheaper to just build a new pedestrian bridge... But how cool would it be to to renovate the jackknife rail bridges into pedestrian bridges? Those would be the coolest pedestrian bridges in the country! More realistically, the vision for the valley states as one of its initiatives, "implement iconic bridge pedestrian underpasses," so that's where I put the smart money on where we will get new pedestrian connections. Honestly a ski-resort style gondola system could work well and move a lot of people, and could be easily gotten out of the way of passing ships. No idea on what engineering and red tape cutting would need to be done for that to be possible though.

I'll see if I can work from home. They have an open seating area and you can move tables if you need to. Order from counter.

I don't work downtown, so I (probably) can't make it. But I'd like to suggest the new Luna location for the venue. Food's great, and I also happen to know they are struggling (i.e. losing money) and could use the business. It's the kind of restaurant I'd love to see more of downtown, so I'd hate to see it fail.

^ Great article! I realize it's almost certainly not going to happen, but with the Metroparks taking control of both halves of this park and seeking public comment on how the southern half should be redeveloped, this is probably the best opportunity we will get in a long time to reconsider the Green Ribbon Coalition's plan to move the highway.

Gotcha, is it related to this? https://www.countyplanning.us/projects/cuyahoga-greenways/cuyahoga-greenways-plan/

I replied in the Cleveland bicycling discussion thread since this was getting a bit off topic for this thread.

Moving this discussion here since it's getting off topic. That's built already. I assume you mean the Eastern half of the redline? Is there any actual plans for that? Also, the opportunity corridor trail has almost the same route as the redline, so I don't think the return would be nearly as large on the east side as it was on the west side. It seems like a Eastside redline Green way wouldn't be that useful, particularly after the Slavic village connector goes in. The opportunity corridor will already make this connection along almost the same route. Am I missing something?

I agree with @HenkeIt has to end somewhere, E55 seems like as good a place as any, as it's basically the North-South spine of Midtown. The other reason for stopping at E55, is that the road narrows East of 55th. It goes from about 7 lanes wide to about 5 lanes wide, so it is much less overbuilt after this point. They could (and probably should) add more bike lanes to Superior east of the midline as a connection, ideally all the way to Cleveland Heights, but that's several miles of road that needs to be redone, which is a much larger task than redoing a few blocks, and the payoff is lower as you're not connecting two different bike lanes. While I'd like it to happen eventually, I don't think it should be prioritized as highly as those few blocks downtown. What Greenway are you referencing here?

I haven't seen this posted anywhere yet, but the Metroparks officially took over administration of the southern portion of Gordon Park as of October 3rd. Additionally, they are planning to demolish the old aquarium building...

I'm not a Cleveland.com subscriber, nor did I watch the planning commission meeting, but based on the headline and their Instagram post, it appears the commission wasn't happy with elements of the design, in particular the large riverfront parking component. Personally, I agree and I'm glad the commission is pushing back on this. https://www.cleveland.com/news/2023/10/cleveland-planning-commission-wants-bedrock-cavs-clinic-to-up-their-game-on-design-of-riverfront-practice-facility.html https://www.instagram.com/p/Cy0_PPxsY4_/

I don't think Cleveland has too many restaurants by any means, but I do think there are specific markets or niches that are saturated. My main examples being fancy upscale restaurants downtown, and (as much as I love them) breweries. Downtown has plenty of expensive restaurants, and I think everyone that goes in is probably going to drive another one out of business. But it's not like downtown has too many restaurants. It actually has a dearth of places like Gerracci's (good, cheap, open late). Cheaper (and even mid-level) dining options are lacking downtown, but fine dining is saturated. And while I love breweries, we've seen a few relatively popular ones close recently, and I think that's just due to market saturation. For a new brewery to come in it basically needs to outcompete an older one.

Do you have a link to this plan? Edit: also, isn't this basically what we got?

I understand this sentiment, but I think the way to get the best of both worlds here is to build it with possibility of expanding it later. That way, even if you never end up expanding it, you haven't actually sacrificed the opportunity to have a wider crossing. I put a very quick sketch up of a way this could maybe, possibly be done below. No idea if it's feasible or realistic. My main point, is that I'd like this be built with an eye towards future expansion so that we can have a connection down to the lake as quickly as possible, while also preserving the possibility of extending this to be a more substantial cap at a later point. I agree with a lot of this. I like how the green ribbon coalition's plan came down to earth (literally) immediately. I personally really like how they're handling the northern terminus of this bridge. The amphitheater seating as layed out here will work much better from a pedestrian flow perspective than the Haslam's plan which I think forced everyone to exit East. I'd also say that since they've refined and added what looks like a very nice connection to the Rock Hall / Science Center, I'm less concerned about not landing immediately. As long as it feels natural to pedestrians it's fine. I think a combination of the southern part of the Haslam's plan with the northern half of this plan (so basically the width of the Haslam connection, but everything else from this plan) would be ideal. Pretty much what I proposed as phase 2 above. -- (Also, I realize the convention center brings in money, but I'm kind of sick of all it's accomodations. It seriously detracts from Mall B (view, flatness) and it's now looking like it's going to take a serious bite out of our landbridge... I get it, but I don't like it.) -- Also, people keep saying the landbridge is wide enough to feel like a park, and then using streets as the comparison for the width, which I think is telling. Instead of saying it's twice the width of certain roads, it's more useful to say it's ~1/4-1/3 the width of the malls. @jmicha @Oldmanladyluck

I was driving past this building yesterday and thinking how prime of a candidate it is for redevelopment. The difference between this building being blighted and a thriving apartment building will be huge in terms of how Cleveland is perceived! A lot of people drive down Carnegie, and it's no secret that area looks rough, in no small part thanks to this highly visible building. Fixing it up will improve the feel of the area tremendously, which will be huge for redeveloping it, and for the impression of Cleveland as a whole!

I can't make it, but hopefully someone asks if they've given any thought to the section between public square and the Detroit-Superior bridge. I realize it's technically out of their scope, but it seems really dumb to have a great bike path over the bridge (which connects to the Lakefront Bikeway pretty well) build this new nice bike trail all the way to E55, and then not even have consistent bike lanes for the few blocks between the two.

I think, you've basically described the concern pretty well actually. The point of comparison you used was a street, or more accurately, a normal bridge. This was originally sold as a "Landbridge." I asked the question somewhere on this forum, how narrow can a Landbridge get before it becomes just a bridge with a wide sidewalk? The answer I got from another commenter, is that the the bridge should have a cap portion that does double duty as something else, either as a base for buildings or as a park. I think it's a fair question at what point this bridge becomes narrow enough that it might be more fairly described as a wide pedestrian bridge than as a "landbridge" (I.e. a park doing double duty as a bridge). Put another way, I'm not sure you'll be able to forget you're on a bridge with this new design the same way you can on the landbridge to the Gateway Arch in St. Louis, or even on prospect street, there may just not be enough width. Again, not saying the design is bad, but that's the concern.

In general I like the plan, it's more detailed, (I'm still waiting on a higher definition picture than Cleveland.com will provide) my main impression though is that this iteration is a cost cut from previous versions. I agree that the land bridge looks thinner (which is disappointing), and the removal of the considered Shoreway bridge addition suggests that they are running into needing to consider costs. Coming back to reality a bit, but still a great plan. Other things to note, the multimodal transport hub is much more defined, and is now primarily not underneath the landbridge. It definitely looks like the intent is to add bus service. Hopefully they build things so that things can be added later (such as widening the landbridge).

The argument (which I never presented as mine) is that there are safety reasons cars and emergency vehicles might need access to the shoulder. I've seen others make somewhat compelling arguments that hard barriers (such as a jersey barrier) between vehicle and bike lane can occasionally cause safety issues. Mostly I was just looking for a quality counterargument, your strawman and ad-homenim are counterproductive. Yabo, however, does make a good point that how legitimate this concern is will depend on multiple road design factors.

One argument I've seen against hard, immovable barriers is that there are legitimate safety concerns when the road has no shoulder or any type of egress exit. One example that is often brought up is emergency vehicles, which often drive on the shoulder to bypass heavy traffic. I can also envision problems with cars breaking down. These flexible barriers are a sort of compromise that allows cars that really need to get off the road the ability to do so, while still offering separation for bicyclists. To be honest, I don't have a response to that argument, and I'm wondering if some of the people on here who are more versed in this stuff have considered it. Edit: Me: Hi website full of urbanists, I encountered this anti-urbanist argument and I'm not sure how to best refute it. What would be the best counterargument? UrbanOhio: sorry, no counterarguments, but have some downvotes!

Or, better yet, finish the building. Add an addition in the same style as the original. It's already a gorgeous building, imagine how much better it will look finished! The one thing this building doesn't need is an "interesting" modern addition.

I don't mind pedestal parking, in general, or for this project, but I wish it didn't go all the way up to the boardwalk as it appears to here. Though, on second look, maybe it doesn't... I'm not sure what those spaces are, I'm guessing utility or something useful but boring, they look pretty small, but if those are retail or something then I'm basically fine with it. What I'd like is to see is some kind of pedestrian frontage here, move some parking to the other side of the road if they feel like they need to do it. Let's prioritize the boardwalk. My 2¢.

...I hate it... On one hand I'm glad to see something get built, but it's hard to be excited by a whole first floor of parking on such a fascinating parcel. I'm hoping the planning commission pushes back on this a bit. Potentially push for moving parking to the other side of the road, and maybe some public facing amenities or uses on the boardwalk. For all the talk about this being publicly accessible, this massing does not suggest that at all.

I don't think this has been posted anywhere else yet. Preservationists make a unique pitch to revive retail at downtown's Arcade "A group of local preservationists has a vision for filling vacant storefronts at the Arcade, an architectural marvel slung between Euclid and Superior avenues in downtown Cleveland. Their proposal: reposition the historic building as a cultural hub, with museums, small merchants, a broad menu of ethnic foods and, perhaps, consulate offices. The idea is to put the city’s heritage on display while finding out-of-the-box uses for challenging indoor retail space. ..." https://www.crainscleveland.com/real-estate/preservationists-propose-creative-retail-uses-cleveland-arcade I'm all for anything that will preserve and activate this Cleveland Gem. I wish them luck!

^ Honestly more than half of this board really did not impress me with their questions or comments. It seems like almost none of them reviewed the material prior to the presentation. Hopefully they are completely ignored by the park designers. Most of their comments were just insert my pet idea here, no reference to the proposal, just have you considered completely unrelated idea x? Sigh... Going back to how fantastically well detailed that presentation is. I really want to highlight this corner of the proposal. I think it fits a great job showing how much right they've put in, and I have a few questions and comments of my own. First, I love the idea of trying to get the boardwalk under the two bridges! Is it practical or the most cost-effective thing to do? Maybe not, but I, like many people, like being able to walk uninterrupted by the water for as long as possible. These kind of silly, not exactly practical, pedestrian options are what make it a park with trails, not just a practical transportation link. I am curious about what exactly a restroom and entry pylon is though. I think the idea of getting small public restrooms is a good, though I'm admittedly concerned about how clean and well maintained this is going to be. Does anyone have examples of where this has been done before and what it might look like? How big it will be, etc? I also love the slide idea. Great use of the space. Adding the stairs to West Side Market is also genius and not getting enough attention. This kind of small connections make a huge difference. We need more of this, connect the nice areas together. Add some nice rope lighting or something and these stairs could be beautiful in and of themselves. Tldr: hopefully the planning commission is entirely ignored and we just get this plan.