Ethan

Since this hasn't been answered yet, it looks like a building renovation.

Demolition looks basically complete, hopefully construction starts soon.

Does anyone know when all the new trees were added to Willard Park? These will make a big difference when they grow in! I also appreciate the flowers! They could use a bed, but I'll take it! (Also for anyone with a keen eye, no those trees aren't dead, just late bloomers, I checked).

Update on progress. Bonus update on St. Clair Ontario street repair.

I agree with you that closing Burke to free up the land for offices, apartments, condos, etc isn't worthwhile. We have far too many surface lots downtown to even be considering this. That said, I think a lot of the people (myself included) who would like to see Burke closed would like to see the majority of it turned into a large park (under the management of the Metroparks). Making it a park obviates most of the issues of building on infill. Furthermore I would expect planting trees and other plants to strengthen the soil over time. I would also dispute the notion that the location of Burke is horrible. As a point of comparison, the distance from the tallest building in Chicago to the nearest edge of Grant Park is 0.6 miles. The distance from the tallest building in Cleveland to the nearest edge of Burke is 0.6 miles. Now I realize that's an arbitrary point of comparison hand picked to support my point, but there is still a point to be made. Half of Burke is just across the shoreway from what is technically downtown (well technically all of Burke is downtown, but I digress...) And Burke is basically catty corner with the nine twelve district which is definitely core downtown, and what I'd consider the main central business district. It's also right next to The Rock Hall, Science Museum, The Mather Ship, and a few other small museums, all very logical park adjacent attractions. The location isn't bad, not as good as Grant Park, but it's the best Cleveland will ever see, and it will only get better after the park is built. If you build the park and a few Pedestrian crossings similar to Edgewater I'm sure development would slowly start to move East down St. Claire and Lakeside, given enough time the park may not seem so isolated after all. (And if the shoreway is converted to a boulevard this pace will be all the quicker!) Once Edgewater was fixed up it did wonders for the neighborhood around it. Imagine what a well maintained Burke sized park could do for the St Claire-Superior, Asia town, the Superior Arts district and the Eastern half of downtown more generally over a few decades. This could be truly transformative, and for some of the parts of the city that could most use it. Realistically I think the far edge of a potential Burke park (east of the innerbelt) would probably function more like Northerly Island than Grant Park. That said, that's not bad! I enjoy Northerly Island, and while the eastern portion of the park will probably be less active than it's western counterpart, that's not bad. I think it would still be a nice shot in the arm to the adjacent neighborhoods! It would also be a fantastic place to route things like the lakefront bikeway through. All in all, I think Cleveland could use a central jewel in its emerald necklace, and a downtown adjacent (ie walkable) destination park. The land Burke sits on is really the only candidate, so I support closing it.

I hope the building doesn't get torn down. It's distinctive and different. I'd love to see some creative adaptive reuse!

Yo! I heard y'all liked windows!

Vote now in the Final Five for the new dog logo! Fans can now submit their votes for their favorite of the final five new designs selected to become the new Browns dog logo https://www.clevelandbrowns.com/news/final-five-new-dog-logo-vote What are people's favorites? Top left seems like the safe, clear, standard choice, but top middle and bottom left seem like interesting dark horse options. The more I look at them different ones grow on me.

Rather than responding I'm linking to a previous post below.

^ The last one was interesting and worthwhile. So much so that I plan on going again today. I'd certainly recommend going if you can, they seem to be genuinely interested in the feedback.

I see two groups of people using this bridge. Downtown residents - I have a friend who lives in the West Bank of the flats. He walks down to Wendy Park (and generally out to the old coast guard station) almost every night. It's fairly obvious that he wasn't doing this before the Metroparks opened their new bridge. This is actually a great comparison. People will walk to water if it has nice amenities (parks, restaurants, etc) for literally no reason as long as there is an enjoyable route to get there. People visiting downtown for leisure - these could be tourists, or just locals who don't live downtown, they will want to visit the various amenities and attractions in and around North Coast Harbor (Rock Hall, Science Center, Mather, Cod, etc), they may also want to check things out downtown and would like an easy, pleasant connection. Also, if they don't live near water, they may just want to see the lake. That may sound like not a lot of people when I put it like that, but it's basically everyone except people in town for business.

I'm just going to leave this here. This way y'all can argue with a bit more data... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_net_migration

Unfortunately I agree with you, but you're just making my point for me. I doubt many people (myself excluded of course) are currently choosing to walk from Public Square to the Rock Hall. Why would they? It's an awful walk, with large sections that are unenjoyable and potentially unsafe for pedestrians. As you point out, people are reacting rationally to the built environment and choosing to drive to the Rock Hall and anywhere else in the North Coast. That's what I'd like to see changed. I'm confident many people will choose to make that walk if there was a direct, safe, and enjoyable walk there. After all, 12 minutes is not that long, and if they come in on a train and have to transfer that's probably close to the average time to destination they could expect even if/when the waterfront line is reopened. The more we can connect the hot areas of Cleveland together the more the gaps between these areas will start to shrink. The North Coast currently has several of downtown Cleveland's biggest tourist/entertainment draws. It needs to be well connected to the downtown core. (And the flats, and playhouse square, etc). I'd love for people visiting Cleveland (either from the suburbs or farther away) to feel like they can park their car once and not need to move it. Beyond that, I hope they enjoy walking through the city (ditto for Cleveland residents), one of the biggest things that distringuishes great cities from mediocre ones is how enjoyable they are to walk.

I'm excited to check this out! Glad it's finally getting an opening date! Great location for a restaurant! Fahrenheit Public Square opening set; Rocco Whalen prepares for shift to heart of downtown "CLEVELAND, Ohio – For restaurateur Rocco Whalen, life is about a couple of doors – one closing on Fahrenheit in the city’s Tremont neighborhood while the other is about to open in the heart of Cleveland – Public Square. "It’s Cleveland pride that is fueling the ventures for Whalen, a guy from Mentor with a presence in Rocket Mortgage FieldHouse and FirstEnergy Stadium, whose love for his hometown never wavers. "Fahrenheit’s target opening date is Monday, July 10." https://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/2023/05/fahrenheit-public-square-opening-set-rocco-whalen-prepares-for-shift-to-heart-of-downtown.html

I feel like part of this perception is precisely because there isn't a land bridge or other easy pedestrian connection. Right now it takes about 20 minutes to walk from public square to the rock hall, and large sections of that walk are not particularly pedestrian friendly. However, it only takes 8 minutes to walk from public square to the end of mall C, if there was a land bridge it would take a total of 12 minutes to get to the Rock Hall. All of which would be very pedestrian friendly. I don't consider 12 minutes a long walk, but 20 minutes can seem quite long, particularly if the area isn't pedestrian friendly. I wholly agree on your park proposals, but in my mind that would only increase the need for a land bridge. Having a huge park like that so (relatively) close to downtown (~20 minute walk from PS) and not creating quality bike/pedestrian infrastructure to get there from the downtown core seems silly to me. Sure you could/should have a few pedestrian bridges further East, but there aught to be a quality connection from the downtown core. Sure but Chicago (less sure about Milwaukee) isn't also dealing with a huge elevation change (not to mention multiple railroad tracks). If this was all at the same grade simply converting the shoreway into a boulevard would probably be sufficient for pedestrian access It's also worth pointing out that as of right now the land bridge is being bundled with the converting the shoreway into a boulevard. One of the explicitly stated benefits of this conversion (see my post about the north coast meeting up thread) is that it allows for the muni lot to become developable. Particularly if Burke becomes a park, these parcels would become very valuable. -- I feel like this conversation has become sidetracked by viewing the land bridge as a parking garage. Even if this structure contains zero parking I think it has the possibility to be transformative in a similar way as the land bridge to gateway arch park in St. Louis (not that we have the smallest National Park at the end of our malls, but the same idea applies). We are strategically capping a highway because easy, safe, enjoyable pedestrian travel is important, particularly when it connects culturally important points. If this structure ends up containing parking that's a bonus, or interesting synergy, I don't think that's the main reason for building it. Other interesting synergies are amtrak and the waterfront line. Potential parking isn't the only side benefit. We've prioritized car transportation for so long we don't seem able to accept that we might make an investment primarily to support pedestrian travel.

I didn't realize Brightline West started off with purchasing another railroad company that had already done some of the initial work. This gives me some hope for Dallas-Houston rail, given Texas Central Railway's apparently collapse, and Brightline's expressed interest in the Texas Triangle. I'd love to see Brightline buy Texas Central, and get a jump on the planning/approval for connecting the 5th and 6th largest cities via high speed rail!

Yes, but nothing major. A little corner action.

I agree with you about the conspiratorial tone. But in terms of the land bridge I've been wanting one long before the Haslams proposal, because it's a very logical location. The "core-to-shore " mantra makes a lot of sense, even just from a "I want to take a walk" perspective. I've walked to the end of the malls and wished I could continue walking many times. We've effectively segregated not just our lakefront but also several of our best tourist attractions from pedestrians. That's not a recipe for success for any city. We need to focus on linking all of our best assets together, particularly for non-car travel, and several of those assets are on the lake. And it's not like I'm alone, the Green Ribbon coalition has been proposing a variation on this for years. https://www.greenribbonlakefront.org/projects/landbridge/ Even the original Burnham plan looks to suggest a similar idea. Though it looks like more of a train terminal as the connector than a land bridge, but it appears to suggest a small park on the lake, so it's accomplishing the same idea, just in a different way (assuming the terminal would be able to be passed through by pedestrians). This is particularly true if we add Amtrak under the land bridge. (Which we should). Obviously price is always a consideration, and trade offs are an ever present reality, but I do think a land bridge at this location should be somewhere near the top of Cleveland's new infrastructure priority list. Precisely where is up for debate.

Disclaimer: posting this does not mean I agree with this opinion piece in totality, but I think it makes some good points, and I think will lead to some interesting discussion here. https://www.crainscleveland.com/opinion/stadium-deals-gift-riches-owners-such-browns-haslams In particular, I don't see the land bridge and the stadium as the same thing. The public / private benefit from the two things seems very different to me.

Just got back from the North Coast Community Involvement meeting. Main takeaway, it seems like the boulevard is the preferred option of both the community and the organizers. The presentation should be available on their website on Monday. Look for it on their website. Here's the map of the boulevard proposal before it got covered with community feedback.

Almost as tall as 55 Public Square!

Yes, but this should be broader than just lights, they should have someone who goes around the city and identifies all manners of repairs that need made. Including things like: cracked sidewalks, fallen streetlights, burnt out lights, beds that need weeded, dead trees that need removed and replaced, potholes that need repaired, broken sewer grates, etc. Simple repairs/maintenance could just be done on the spot, and more complicated things would be logged. Even if the city can't get to everything right away at least they will know what needs done.

This is a good point, to some extent I'm taking it on faith that the Rock Hall knows what they need. I know part of this is moving offices and other essential, non customer facing necessities out of the main building. That could end up making a big difference by freeing up valuable space in the main building, but I don't know exactly how. Also, having the ability to play live music seems huge for a music hall of fame, even if it's nobody special, live music makes a huge difference. What I'd personally like to see is a less linear museum with more of a focus on music and less on memorabilia. Particularly post Beatles, pretending that all of the music the "Rock" Hall of Fame wants to claim shares the same story is tenuous at best. Given that, have different foot paths for things like Hip-hop, country, and metal, maybe even in a separate annex. If you're going to put all these disparate styles under one roof then you should at least do them all justice. Let people know where these styles diverge, what their early influences are, etc. Treat all of these styles with the same care that is given for early roots through the Beatles. That isn't going to happen, but that would be my 2¢. (Or just be willing to define what is and isn't "Rock" and focus the museum accordingly, that's definitely not going to happen though)

Hot take: this is IM Pei's fault, the original design is bad architecture, yes it's pretty, but it's functionally awful. Hardly any of the above ground space is useful for the functions of a museum. It's a great statue but a terrible building. Very nice to look at from the outside, but once you're inside it just feels illogical and poorly laid out. The entrance is a great example. Why does the Rock Hall want to move it? Because there's hardly anywhere to check or sell tickets, you walk in to a few feet before a railing, and someone is asking for tickets and handing you a wristband. The whole thing feels like an afterthought, like the architect never bothered to think about how the museum would function day to day. That said, I'm not huge on the update either. It's less bad than I originally thought it would be, but it still isn't great. It's probably good though that the Rock Hall is prioritizing the functions of the space over it's aesthetics. I'm hopeful that the exterior ends up looking better than I initially thought it would. So far each series of renderings has been better than the last, hopefully what's built continues that trend. More than that though, I'm hopeful that the update improves the experience of visiting the Rock Hall, because ultimately that's what matters. I know a lot of Clevelanders who don't recommend people visit the Rock Hall, or have never been themselves. That's the real problem, not how the building looks from the outside. On a separate note, what I'd ideally like to see happen is this renovation happen in tandem with the land bridge. There's a lot of opportunity for these two things to work together synergistically (underground expansion, connecting to parking, etc). I'm worried that the direction of their expansion might make something like the Green Ribbon Coalitions proposal infeasible. I can understand why the Rock Hall doesn't want to wait for something that may never happen though...

Even more than that, the article I linked argues that, empirically speaking, sprawl hasn't gotten worse since 1990, the basis point against we are seeing this uptick in loneliness. Indeed, it looks like trends are going in the opposite direction. (Which is good). This looks to me like an urbanist forum having a hammer and insisting that every problem must be a nail. And no, I'm not arguing sprawl is good, or even that it isn't a contributing factor to societal loneliness, only that it can't reasonably be attributed to this particular trend over the last 30 years.