Ethan

It struck me as I was walking around downtown and the west side how beautiful and well maintained all the Metroparks properties are, particularly in comparison to the parks and green spaces not managed by the Metroparks. I'd love to see the city transfer control of more parks and green spaces to the Metroparks.

Wendy Park Bridge

This seems to be the prevailing mentality on this forum, and it doesn't make sense to me. A bunch of small parks can't replace a big park (and vice versa) even if they are of equal acreage. They serve different purposes, and the way people interact with them is wholly different. Big parks are destinations, people intentionally go to them to spend some time, small parks dispersed throughout the city allow everyone to integrate a bit of nature into their daily lives. Both of these things are important, but neither can replace the other. There's also no reason we can't have both. Also the best use of land is inherently subjective. I personally think Cleveland needs to take advantage of this regrowth opportunity to save (preferably waterfront) space for large downtown parks before that space is gobbled up for other uses.

I'm guessing the bridge not being in the mouth of the harbor has something to do with the Mather Museum. They clearly went out of their way to make sure it still has unimpeded Lake access. Also, while I totally agree it will be the better location in the future, it almost certainly isn't right now, as there is nothing at all on the other side of the harbor.

Thanks @Geowizical! I didn't realize that area was so large, and hadn't considered that the port could be filled in. For reference, the area of Grant Park (or at least the area in the above picture) is about 0.4 SQ miles. The only place Cleveland could amass that kind of space is Burke, but I don't want to derail this thread. Other places that Cleveland could conceivably make contiguous parks that are about 0.1 SQ miles (1/4 of Grant Park) are Scranton Peninsula and the area on the other side of Collision bend. (See below). Combining both of these areas would create a park about half the size of grant split by the river.

This is the kind of large downtown park that Cleveland doesn't have, and I think needs. I can only think of three places where a park even a quarter of this size could fit downtown, none of which would be easy to make work. I'm wondering if anyone else has any ideas on where Cleveland could realistically put a large park downtown?

The bridge isn't ugly. Maybe it won't win any beauty competitions, but it isn't the eye sore everyone in this thread is making it out to be. The fact that it isn't as pretty as you're favorite design doesn't make it an ugly eyesore. What's more, I'm guessing most of the artist designed bridges would have gotten considerably beefier once an engineer was tasked with making it operational and safe. At the end of day we have a functional bridge that was actually built, that I anticipate using frequently, maybe several times a week, that will only get more useful as further lakefront development takes place, particularly development near the stadium. Effectively this bridge turns voinovich park from a terminus park to a through park, and as someone who loves walking along the water, I'm happy to see it.

You can walk across an "ugly" bridge just as well as a pretty one.

I think you can get the benefits of offices and apartments as long as they are near the lake, but they don't need to be on the water. I agree that, to the greatest degree feasible, all future waterfront development should have clear public benefit. The waterfront should be accessible to everyone in the city.

I'd rather see the corner of Rockwell and W Mall Drive closed (minimum from the Mariot to E 3rd to Public Square) to better connect public square with Mall A, and I think it would be a hard sell to do both. I'm not an expert, but it seems like Superior may benefit more from a road diet than outright closure. And if we're going to close off portions of a major road to cars, Euclid makes more sense to me than Superior, as it gets a lot more foot traffic.

This is a good point, and one I've considered. There may be a way to put a station here and a park such that both things benefit each other. As with many things the devil is in the details. And you're right putting a park here would require connecting it to Tower city in some fashion. It could be one way to do that is through a new Union Terminal. It's not the only way, but it would certainly do the trick! I think people would use a park here, even without extensive development nearby. (I absolutely would anyway!) Mainly because it has the potential to be a large park, on the water, within walking distance of downtown. Which is something downtown Cleveland doesn't have, and I think needs. A park large enough that people can momentarily 'forget' they are in a big city, and enjoy nature is a draw in and of itself. A nice park could actually catalyze development on its edges. You're point about CVSR is correct and also a good point. I agree, I would just like to make sure that any station and tracks that are placed here are done so with maximum concern for not impeding pedestrian traffic. I wouldn't want to see a big terminal building near the water that stops people from walking along the river. Or fences along the tracks preventing people from crissing over them. A design that satisfies my concerns seem very doable, but I just want to flag the potential issues early on.

I know that the two aren't actually linked. I was considering the question more as a hypothetical. (Bit in the real world of limited funds a plausible one) I've read your post arguing that a new CUT would be the most important mega project for Cleveland, it was well thought out, but I just disagree. The short version is that what I value most in cities is walkability, and the difference that the land bridge will make in that respect is huge. I wander down the malls every few days, and every time I wish I could walk straight to the lake. What St. Louis did with the gateway arch is what I'd like to see Cleveland do for the Lake / Rock Hall. What I value second most is parks and urban green space, the land bridge also provides more of that. And lastly, it isn't like the lakefront Amtrak station is a bad location (assuming a land ridge is built), this is at best a comparison between a good place to put the station, and a great place to put the station. There are a lot of pluses and minuses. But the one I haven't seen anyone being up, is that while it is slightly farther from Public Square, the whole walk will be down the malls, with great views, and green space the whole way! One negative to the CUT, at least from my perspective, and one that I don't see discussed is that the area south of Terminal Tower that is currently a sea of parking lots, has some tremendous park potential! Downtown doesn't have any truly large parks and I'd love to see the river bank be park from Collision bend to the new Canal Basin Park. It will probably never happen, but I think it would be transformative for downtown to really embrace the riverfront and fill it with parks. On the whole I just perceive the land bridge as a more valuable addition to Cleveland, particularly if you assume we will get a new Amtrak Station either way. But I recognize it depends on what you prioritize for Cleveland's development. Just my 2¢

I'd personally, for sure, pick the land bridge, I can understand why others wouldn't, but for me, it's the clear choice. It just comes down to priorities.

I like it except for the terminal closest to the river. A highway isn't a good use for waterfront property, and rail is only marginally better, if at all. Is there an alternative layout that would allow for better uses of the riverfront? Could we get by with three? I want to see future Cleveland leverage as much of its waterfront for leisure and entertainment as possible, and to keep it as walkable as possible.

I agree completely. I like the bridge going over the flats, it looks cool, but more importantly, I don't want to add that kind of car traffic to the flats. I'd love to see them turn the exits at E9th and W3rd into intersections though. Same for the near west side. The highway divides the city from the water too much.

I find it very aesthetically pleasing as well, but I'm very curious how they plan to make it technically feasible. They would have to go over a rising shoreway in that direction (or move the shoreway, which seems difficult and expensive). If they have to go that high, it seems like it may be difficult to smoothly integrate the land bridge on the north side. On another note, does anyone know how to interpret the circles, yellow lines, and grayed out regions on the proposal map? I have a few guesses, but nothing solid.

I wonder if the wind tunnel effect the caption references would be less extreme today? since it appears that there were fewer buildings to the north of the galleria than there are now.

Out of curiosity, where would you choose to place the station if it was up to you?

Work under Detroit Superior bridge continues.

Okay, I suppose I had an incorrect assumption. In the future I'll be slower to share my opinion in this sub-forum, and I'll leave answering questions to the more knowledgeable. The point I was trying to make, albeit poorly, is that there are reasons that I, and people like me, don't ride Amtrak. Trains, are my preferred way to travel, all else being equal, and I frequently check to see how feasible it would be to do my trip via rail, but I can never justify it compared to other modes of travel in the USA (cars, buses, planes) when cost, time, and other considerations are taken into account. I like trains, but I'm not passionate enough about them to override material considerations, which I am pretty sure is the situation a lot of people see themselves in. Anyway, thank you both for answering the questions I had.

A few thoughts: 2) If the only part that can't coexist is the viaduct as @KJP says than I think it would be very easy to reroute the bike trail in this instance. It could go up Scranton Peninsula and connect to the Towpath, or it could go through the Irishtown Bend Park currently in the works. It could also go down Columbus (or they could throw a lot of money at making the viaduct accommodate both, but I see no justification for that given all the other options). @KJP

I think on the whole places like Collision Bend would be glad to see a boardwalk go in. They could still have a portion of the new boardwalk be used for private customer seating (possibly the same amount of outdoor seating, depending on build specifics). Either way, I imagine the increased foot traffic will be a huge boon for their business.

Question: is there/has there ever been a plan to extend the flats boardwalk to Settler's Landing? I would love that! There's already a few cool things on Old River road, and I imagine extending the boardwalk would only help them to flourish. Maybe as a Flats East Bank phase 5?

Ah! That is the missing piece that explains my confusion, thanks! I see where you are coming from now, and I see the difficulty. Considering all of this it seems like the most cost effective action may just be to leave Amtrak in its current location. While it isn't in a good location presently, if the land bridge is ever built, Amtrak could be expanded in conjunction with the land bridge, and it would then be in a very good location. Near some of Cleveland's biggest attractions, and being right off the waterfront line, it would theoretically be an easy connection to Tower City. (Which will hopefully one day use it's parking garage space for an RTA rail expansion). The numbers we have been throwing out are about 100m for a land bridge or a new Union Terminal. It seems like you could bundle the two together and save if you leave Amtrak in its current location. Practically speaking, what are the differences between the two locations? Right now Amtrak is very inaccessible, though with a land bridge, the two locations would be a fairly short walk away from each other. Would one line add significantly more time to certain trips? Will one location shorten all trips? I don't know. Tower city is definitely a more central location, though not by much, a land bridge connected amtrak would also be fairly central, but in a different, sightly more tourist focused, way. I like that a revival of Cleveland Union Terminal looks to our city's past for inspiration, but I think there are also some interesting forward looking possibilities that we could embrace by sticking with it's current location. Anyway, thank you for ameliorating my ignorance! I appreciate it!

I'm not sure if this is just routine maintenance on Detroit Superior Bridge, or if it perhaps has something to do with Canal Basin Park. Either way it's good to see. Five boom lifts is a lot, so I figured I'd post it. They may just be removing graffiti for all I know.