To start I humbly submit to the moderators this post.  I don't know exactly where it could go. It's clearly Northeast Ohio, but it's sort of a fiction development piece.

------------

 

 

Maybe it's just me, but since the forum upgrade it feels like posting volume has gone down.  Anyhow, I am truly grateful to UO posters who keep me up to date on all things Cleveland, and wanted to throw out a discussion piece.  This is sort of a rough compilation of what (in a perfect world) Cleveland might look like in another generation or so.  Jacobs' Tower, Phase 1 Lakefront development,  Flats east bank, Avenue District, Casino Phase 2...

 

Just thought people might like to discuss what their hopes would be for developmental direction of the city.  Skyscrapers, dense shorter districts, a downtown loop (KJP sigh...) etc.  I was recently telling a friend about how great Cleveland is, and that, in my opinion, if we could just make an obvious and easily navigable connection between our great assets (WSM, Downtown, UC, AT, LI) and get the suburbanites to fill in the population losses this would be one of the most interesting and vibrant towns in America.

In my ideal world, the taller and bulkier buildings would be broken down into neighborhoods.  The last thing we need is more street life killing structures like the Key Tower.  Also remember that due to how deep our bedrock is, building skyscrapers in Cleveland is very expensive.

Nice work Burnham.

I have a couple of tweaks that I would suggest that seems like given projects once the CC and casino get done, sort of a long the lines of the sky scraper in the Jacobs on public square. The first would be a hotel tower on the site of the current County admin building and the second would be a hotel tower in the "empty" space at Tower City on the corner of Huron and Ontario.

 

Personally I would like to see the build out of the west side of the CBD to look a lot like what Stark was proposing with the "Pescht" proposals.

In my ideal world, the taller and bulkier buildings would be broken down into neighborhoods.  The last thing we need is more street life killing structures like the Key Tower.  Also remember that due to how deep our bedrock is, building skyscrapers in Cleveland is very expensive.

 

I generally agree with you about skyscrapers, but I would make an exception for the last Public Square lot.  I would love to see something significant (800'+) on that lot.

 

Not sure the buildings on the port land by Browns Stadium would work.  There are FAA height restrictions on buildings within some boundary created for planes landing and taking off from Burke.  Not sure exactly what the limit is at these locations, but they were raising a stink about one of the pedestrian bridge designs for the harbor right there.  And that was 100, maybe 150 feet?

It's not clear to me how skyscrapers kill street life, or how breaking them up into shorter towers would rectify the problem.  Offices aren't great for street life, but at least a skyscraper gets a lot of them into a small footprint, rather than spreading out the dead zone. 

Nice work! Not only is their height restrictions for the lakefront but it would also be(i believe) impossible to build anything of the height there because the land is essentially landfill. By 2050 I would also like to see the lot next to 668 filled in as well as the one south of east 4th street/prospect.

Great topic! But it's a discussion topic since we're dealing with more than just actual projects.

 

I encourage others to submit their ideas (in writing, graphics or both) for what they would like downtown Cleveland to look like in 2050.

It's not clear to me how skyscrapers kill street life, or how breaking them up into shorter towers would rectify the problem.  Offices aren't great for street life, but at least a skyscraper gets a lot of them into a small footprint, rather than spreading out the dead zone. 

 

Modern day skyscrapers tend to be too self-sufficient.... if that is the right term.  They have parking down below and evrything you could want within their walls.  They don't encourage you to leave the building.  Typically, they don't have any interaction with the street.  They look nice from a distance, but they don't have the same street impact that two or three buildings could have.  This is particulalry true in our CBD where there are ample empty lots to be filled.

 

To me, skyscrapers should be built out of necessity.  You build up because there is nowhere to build out.  That's where their utility lies, saying nothing about their symbolism.

Great thread idea!  We should also have a thread (or maybe include in this one) "realistic" predictions for Cleveland in 2050 as opposed to aspirations.

 

I share everyone's hopes for filling the public square lot (and other surface lots downtown).  But my biggest hope is that the flats really takes off as a residential neighborhood that mixes new build low rise/townhouse construction with sensitive rehabs of what's left of the atmospheric commercial/industrial stuff and a well designed trail/open space system (as Parkworks and BCBD have proposed).  If we can create a zone of contiguous safe, attractive, ped-friendly, built-out neighborhoods that includes Ohio City, Tremont, the Flats and downtown, I think we'd have something incredibly awesome, with unique topography, infrastructure, amenities, history, etc.  Also easily expandable to incorporate Detroit Shoreway and midtown and beyond.  If this area can attract enough residential wealth, downtown retail would follow.  We're kind of on this path already, but I worry a little bit that the scorched earth Big Project development pattern (like FEB) is the only one that will be able to grab the subsidies and private financing to happen, and I'm not quite as thrilled by that future.

 

Similarly, keep working to create another zone of continuous walkable, residentially dense neighborhoods centered on University Circle.  I think this is going to be tougher than it sounds because of parking demands, stakeholder expectations, and historic preservation pressure.  Obviously Uptown is a huge step in this direction design wise, though really only a drop in the bucket in terms of adding new residential units.  Ultimately we'll have to decide (explicitly or through inaction) how much of UC's low density suburban character we want to preserve.

Glad to see a discussion brewing.  I agree with Hts121 and would prefer a more European build out (or D.C. like if you're more familiar with that).  I also, however, think that the Jacobs property on Public Square deserves an epic structure, if not 800+ then certainly some unique architectural piece with at least 300-400 feet in height.  If for no other reason than to hide that ugly glass-curtain 55 Building.  Also, I think suburbanites (who make up at least some of the population we need to attract back downtown) judge the positive or negative direction of the city by these structures.  Just one more giant would really put a dent in the "2.5 building skyline" image others have.  (I love our skyline for the record!)

 

I don't think that skyscrapers are necessarily the cause of the a muted street life, but often get that blame because of cities (like Cleveland) who have bold skylines but little street life.  The reality is that if the buildings lining East Fourth were 100 stories (and filled) the street life wouldn't be muted, it would, in fact, be explosive.

 

The key is having those towers filled, and, most importantly, having street level retail and entertainment.  Look at Key Tower, it might as well be a prison from the ground floor.  Now imagine it has street level cafes with sidewalk tables, some shops, and a nice restaurant on the square.  The signage, windows, and activity would change everything, and all with just a couple of shops and restaurants.

 

The key, as always, is people.

 

So I'd love to hear if people had policy thoughts for bringing the baby boomers back, or bringing in younger crowds to live downtown.   

I don't think that skyscrapers have to kill street life, but I agree that Key Tower is particularly good at it. The whole first floor is a giant lobby, besides the entrance to the retail branch, coffee stand and the entrance to the Mariott there is no reason to enter the building unless you are going to one of the offices. At least the BP tower has 2 or 3 levels of retail spaces in the mezzanine that would give you a reason to come in the building other than to go to an office.  I guess my point is that a sky scraper with the first 3 or 4 levels dedicated to retail would contribute to street life.

 

This is a personal opinion, but I think you might run into problems putting residential on the land north of CBS, I know they currently  only really use  it 10 times a year but the hassle of basically being stranded in your home 10 times a year would seem to be a major detriment to living there. 

Don't forget what we had to give up for the BP building.  My favorite parts of downtown are the WHD and East 4th.  Harking back to times past, the east bank would be included.  Notably, no skyscrapers.  The most lively parts of downtown from the street are the gaps in the skyline from a distance...... not saying that I don't like looking at the skyline from a distance.

^No argument here. I was just using the BP building as a comparrison to Key. I don't think we should be knocking down anything for a sky scraper, given the availibility of open spaces downtown.

 

(Besides the current county admin building, i don't think that anyone will miss that Gem)

 

I would love to see a resurgence of the Pesht concept, before a skyscraper, if only to fill in those lots once and for all. That massing of 4-6 story buildings would have done a lot to create a sense of completeness to downtown, even without an iconic skyscraper. Plus, unless said skyscraper is bringing in new employees from out of the city, you're just sucking up population into minimal street level square footage, creating a sense that there are less people downtown than there really are.

 

I also would have loved to see the waterfront plan come to fruition, but it appears that the Port has no intention of going anywhere anymore, so that plan is likely done for timeline we're discussing here.

Agree strongly that street level retail and entertainment lead to street life, especially concentrated strips like E4th.  The best thing for downtown (other than landing a major retailer) would be an inviting pedestrian connection between E4th/Gateway and the WHD/Flats.  Whatever goes into the last publc square lot needs to contribute with some street level offerings, but obviously the biggest piece is the empty WHD lots.

 

As for drawing more population downtown, I believe improving the retail lineup is paramount.  Without a department store our downtown is dysfunctional.

 

 

Oh no..... not the chicken and the egg debate again....

Not to beat a dead horse, but I have to say the height of the building does not affect the quality of the street life.  We're mixing up causality and correlation.  Sure, in Cleveland there is no one outside the Key tower or at Superior and ninth.  But this is not because the buildings around them are too tall.  It is because they have nothing going on at the street level.  In the end there are two factors that affect street life directly.

 

1. Number of people in the city at any given time (residents, tourists, suburban sports fans).

2. The amount of available activity at the ground level. 

 

The buildings at East fourth didn't get shorter in the last decade...  the area become host to more ground level entertainment.

 

Also, there are plenty of urban areas in Cleveland and elsewhere that are dead at 9pm on a Saturday night and have 7 story dense buildings.  In fact, to keep the dreaded NYC comparison going, I was at Columbus Ave. in the 80s last weekend and though it was wall to wall buildings around the "Higbees" height I was one of only a few on the street.  Why? Because the bar I was walking to, it turned out, was the only bar within 4 blocks!  Everything else was closed. 

 

Not sure about the copyright issues, so I will just provide a link. But I would love to see something like this downtown Minneapolis Target store in the WHD parking lots. Especially if the store makes up the core of the block, with an outer shell of residential/small commercial.

 

http://www.phototour.minneapolis.mn.us/2056

 

Edit: Oh crap it's part of a mall. Well I would still like a free standing version like that.

I have to agree with Burnham on this one, it's the amount of activity available at street level that makes an area heavy with foot-traffic, not the size of the building. I had a client in Key Tower and spent two weeks working there. Outside of the buffet in the hotel and that little sports deli across the street, there was NO WHERE to eat for lunch. After three days I just started packing because there just wasn't anything really worth it. I'm sure there may have been other places had I walked farther down to Tower City, but with so many buildings that have no retail spaces on the first floor, it keeps people inside buildings. E. 4th is an excellent example of how to increase foot-traffic around these big buildings. I would love to see the city use that final plot of land on Public Square used for a skyscraper, and have the first two floors entirely dedicated to restaurants and other retail. It's a simple concept that would do wonders for foot traffic downtown and around Public Square.

Is their anyway to add retail space to ground floor of Key Tower? Ive never been inside but could it happen? Maybe just as simple as a corner coffee shop with an inside and outside entrance?

 

And honestly the best building on public square that provides street level activity is the Park Building. The Terminal Tower does as well for people who use that entrance put thats more of a funnel effect and it takes up a Huge area with little street life. The casino should help the complex, and doesn't the renaissance hotel have retail spaces on the square?

Not to beat a dead horse, but I have to say the height of the building does not affect the quality of the street life.  We're mixing up causality and correlation.  Sure, in Cleveland there is no one outside the Key tower or at Superior and ninth.  But this is not because the buildings around them are too tall.  It is because they have nothing going on at the street level.  In the end there are two factors that affect street life directly.

 

I don't think I explained my POV very well.  I like to think pragmatically.  But pretending I am a developer who owns the WHD lots, let's assume I have 4 big name tenants lined up who all want brand-new class-A space.  I could build a 80 story tower with a 25,000 sq ft footprint, or I could build four 20 story structures with 25,000 sq ft footprints each.  So.... that is potentially 25,000 sq ft of ground floor space or 100,000 sq ft of ground floor space.  It would also come down to a choice between filling in one lot, or filling in four lots, with the possibility of some interesting streetscapes in between.  I find it hard to believe that the one tower would have anywhere near the street life impact potential of the four.

 

Of course, I'm not saying it couldn't be the other way around depending on the developer/designer, but the latter approach certainly offers much more potential.  And keep in mind that modern day skyscrapers are not designed, for the most part in terms of utility, by urban enthusiasts, but rather by the types that designed that monstrosity in Dubai.

^ I guess if it's 4 office tenants, I would opt for the single tower.  If there's retail/entertainment tenants as well, that justifies spreading it out more.  I really think it's important to minimize office frontage at the ground level.

Of course..... you should know 327 that I would never build anything without ground floor retail/entertainment..... sheesh

Something else I would love to see is the Fifth Third Bank parking lot demolished(or at least the end that front East 6th Street) and have some sort of Residential Tower built there with street level retail. That could really liven up East 6th.

East 6th has a lot of untapped potential

I think the Chester/E12 area (once the new park is developed) could really be great, though I'm afraid as of now it looks like only Reserve Sq. offers retail space (?)  The entire corridor of E12 could really be something in a 50 year picture.

 

Also the Prospect/E14 area could really expand the potential of the Gateway -> Public Square area.  I find this to be one of the most interesting areas of downtown (aside from the obvious WHD).

 

The Prospect/Huron/E9 area is begging for development (The Ameritrust Building and skyway...) and if one could keep continuous (if somewhat sporadic) venues/residential/retail between the Casino (Phase 2) and Playhouse Sq. (including Bolivar Road and Erie court (brick roads... awesome!) along here we could really see a vibrant scene. 

 

 

Of course..... you should know 327 that I would never build anything without ground floor retail/entertainment..... sheesh

 

It's not you I'm worried about.  I'm thinking of the decision to put that ad agency (with its privacy barns) into the picture windows of 668, of the notion that 3rd Federal's HQ would somehow liven up Broadway, of the debates over Midtown and the Mall renovation.  If our goal is street life then I think it's worth sorting out what enhances it and what doesn't.  And if develpment isn't properly planned to facilitate street life, then no amount of greenspace or traffic calming will fix it.

 

That's why I like these threads so much.  This city needs a plan, it needs to look 40 years out instead of election-to-election. 

Agreed 100% (hence this thread!)

 

I don't know if it's a zoning issue or if this is something that City Council can (should?) be involved in, but the use of the first floor in buildings needs to be examined in Cleveland.  I live in D.C. and an area nearby has developed a vibrant street life.  I have spoken with some restaurant owners and others who run businesses there and many of the buildings are vacant (or only slowly filling in the office space) above the ground floor.  A lot of owners and developers treat the ground floor space as almost a separate building as the rest of it.  In busy dense areas of many cities apartment entrances are no more than a small doorway between the store fronts which line the avenues. 

 

There is absolutely no reason we should have so many first floors tied up by commercial interests and lobbies.  When I look at the medical mutual building I can't help but imagine those first floors being taken up by J. Crew, Gucci, United Colors of Bennington (imagine that going up to Euclid and more at the Huntington?  The Old Cleveland Trust Rotunda as an Urban Outfitters? (sorry everyone!  I just know that looks like their kind of space....)

 

 

When I see Medical Mutual, and 9th and Euclid/Prospect Area... I think 5th Ave.    :drunk: (delusional/hopeful Clevelander) 

 

 

To me there are a number of questions not being asked here. What is the occupancy rate of existing street-level retail spaces? Where are the greatest number of occupied street-level retail spaces? Where is the largest number of vacant retail spaces? Why do these conditions exist where they exist?

 

And how did a thread about downtown development visions for 2050 become YET ANOTHER discussion of downtown retail??

^Seriously.  If there was money to made from leasing ground level space to good credit retail/restaurant tenants (off the established strips), pretty sure K&D would have been more than happy to accommodate it in 668 Euclid.

 

 

I think that it would be reasonable to say that by 2050 most of us here would like (perhaps find it essential) that Downtown Cleveland have both at least 1 anchor department store, and a variety of top-tier designer stores at the street level nearby.  This would be more of a effect than cause per se, but certainly a big part of what would be the vision for the city.

 

In terms of a more straight forward list:

 

1. Downtown Loop (Waterfront Extension)

2. Public Square connected/redesigned

3. Remaining lot off public square developed (Skyscraper?)

4. Stark Like WHD plan.

5. Casino Phase 2 (let's hope that's not so much a dream as a near certainty)

6. Transportation to make Market District and WHD easily traveled between.

7. Flats East Bank development at full 2006 plans level.

8. West Bank of Flats planned, perhaps amidst development, and pedestrian bridges.

9. Group Plan Fully Implemented.

10. Avenue District inhabited (sigh) and new buildings erected.

11. Columbus Peninsula turned into a recreation area, completed Tow Path and connection to Settler's Landing.

12. 40 more years of what University Circle seems to be so good at doing recently!

13. Little Italy and University circle stops on Red Line.  Perhaps a West Side East Side rail line reutilizing the Superior Bridge lower level.

14. Presidential Convention Host City at least once, and a damned national sports championship!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Whew, if that was Cleveland in 2050 I think we'd have pitched the Urbanist's equivalent of back to back perfect games.

 

(EDIT: But considering that 40 years ago this city was home to 750,903 people, we know a lot can happen in that amount of time).

Maybe people bring up downtown retail because it's a serious issue facing our community.  It's worth examining how other cities have solved the problem, and it's worth considering more than one possible approach.

Exactly, in a 2050 Cleveland, I think we would all like to see a healthy amount of retail downtown, cause that would mean we have improved and declined further

Maybe people bring up downtown retail because it's a serious issue facing our community.  It's worth examining how other cities have solved the problem, and it's worth considering more than one possible approach.

 

OK.  How have other cities solved the problem?  Which cities?

Which cities?

 

There are downtown department stores in Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, St Louis and Milwaukee.  Subsidies are involved, but that may not be the whole of it.  So far our best homegrown plan involves creating an Amish furniture district.  I'm not sure how that relates to best practices.   

IMHO, the biggest problem is still population loss, and we can't expect everyone to want to live in the area narrowly defined as 'downtown'. Realistically, you have three categories of pedestrian. Workers, Residents, and Visitors. Right now, downtown only gets busy when there are either a lot of Workers (who currently don't contribute much to streetlife) or a lot of Visitors (W. 6th/9th, E. 4th, Gateway during games, etc.). There are more residents than there used to be, but I have no idea if they are making an impact.

 

Residents: If we really want more people in Cleveland, I think Cleveland needs to take some bold chances with its urban planning. Developments like Battery Park are very nice in that they branch off an existing growth area (Detroit-Shoreway) and revitalize a stagnant area. They are also moderately dense, at least for single family homes. But I would suggest more apartments in 4-7 story buildings with street-level retail in order to really improve population and streetlife.

 

Visitors: I think this base is as well covered as it's going to be for the next few years. Focus on maintaining hub status for the airport and making the city safer/more accessible.

 

Workers: I don't know if anyone is going to be able to change that many office workers enjoy eating in the office or packing their lunches. Focus on keeping businesses downtown regardless of their impact on streetlife. Don't allow a repeat of Eaton; also, replace Eaton. Tax credits for startup creative firms.

There seem to be a lot of workers walking around downtown during lunch hours and really anytime during work hours. They have to be going somewhere! So I would say they have the largest impact on street life currently cause they add the most people to the streets as of now.

Which cities?

 

There are downtown department stores in Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, St Louis and Milwaukee.  Subsidies are involved, but that may not be the whole of it.  So far our best homegrown plan involves creating an Amish furniture district.  I'm not sure how that relates to best practices.   

 

There's a big difference between best practices and ideal practices.  Determining best practices is a much more complex formula.  I can promise you one thing though.  Walk any major retailer right into Frank Jackson's office, have them state that they want to set up shop in downtown, and the City will make it happen.

 

 

 

 

I think Tower City is going to have to play a big role in this and therefore Forest City Enterprises, Inc.  Though we clearly will need to keeping adding to the downtown residents group Tower City Center and the Avenue is by far the most likely place for high tier retailers to set up shop.  Though I often dislike people pointing out that our cold and long winters make street life more challenging, I will acknowledge that this massive (and gorgeous) indoor shopping center is ideal.  Perhaps the Casino (phase 2) will encourage some higher caliber retailers into the avenue, and as this mall reinvents itself so too could retail in downtown.  The problem, as always, would be using this as a catalyst for people to move about the city streets proper.

 

I can't remember, but are there any properties available in tower city that could host a department store?  Or was that the reason there was an additional Higbees building?

 

 

Walk any major retailer right into Frank Jackson's office, have them state that they want to set up shop in downtown, and the City will make it happen.

 

Well, yes, that is one strategy, taking no action at all until something falls in our lap.  He should campaign on that.

 

I can't remember, but are there any properties available in tower city that could host a department store?  Or was that the reason there was an additional Higbees building?

 

Higbees was our last open department store space.  I think they've all been repurposed now.  Maybe we can get a new one in WHD or near 14th/Prospect, something along the lines of University Square on Cedar.

How are you so certain he has taken no action?  You really, really have a giant misconception on what goes on inside City Hall.

Although cities can take steps to make themselves more business friendly, I'll bet that if you ask any mayor, he/she will tell you their city is business friendly. Whether they are or are not is up for debate. But the point is that cities don't create businesses. They approve or reject applications by businesses to locate in a city. If a business wants to locate somewhere, they will make an application to the city. But city officials invariably spend more time on putting out small brush fires to keep the farm from burning down than recruiting new businesses because that's what many of their constituents demand of them.

 

Sit in a Cleveland City Council member's office sometime and count how often the phone rings -- it is every couple of minutes. Then note the nature of the calls -- most are "putting out the brush fires"-type calls like barking dogs, unfilled potholes, broken windows on an abandoned business, etc. From my unscientific observations, these take up anywhere from 70-100 percent of any city officials' time. Some elected city leaders only want to work on the day-to-day constituent issues -- Jay Westbrook is one who comes to mind. He doesn't care for the long-range stuff. But others do and they like to spend more time on big-picture, long-range planning -- Brian Cummins is an example. But even Brian can't ignore constituent complaint calls. I've sat in his office and strategized with him about the future while his lovely assistant took perhaps a dozen calls about neighborhood problems.

 

So the moral of the story is -- we may want City Hall to take the lead on bringing more businesses to town. But in an old industrial city in transition like Cleveland, we are just one of many, many, many constituents City Hall must listen to. And since it's up to businesses to decide where they want to locate, Cleveland city officials typically wait for businesses to come to them.

How are you so certain he has taken no action? 

 

I didn't say I was.  I was responding to your suggestion... of course he wouldn't turn away a deal that came right at him.  Some of us may expect a little more, none of us know exactly what he's up to, and it might be nice to find out.  So educate us.  What are his plans for downtown, for retail, or for the city in 2050?  I've read through the neighborhood-by-neighborhood plan Jackson's administration released during his first term.  I found it to be unambitious, particularly regarding downtown.  No harm in coming up with our own little side plans, is there?  He can't be mayor forever.

Some of us may expect a little more, none of us know exactly what he's up to, and it might be nice to find out.  So educate us.

 

Educate yourself. You're the only one responsible for your own education.

May I suggest a public records request 327?  All of the info you seek is available and readily obtainable with a fraction of the effort you spend speculating about it.  Contact Kim Roberson at City Hall.  Just make sure to send the request via certified mail so you can get your statutory damages if the City does not compy ;)

Decided to take another stab at this...  bear in mind it's the "future"

 

 

 

 

First off is transportation.  In the dream future we'd have the downtown loop completed, we'd also have a Superior Avenue light rail that would go from the Warehouse District out to Asia town and E36th to start, maybe all the way to 55th.  Lastly (in this oh-so-bright future) we'd have found a random few hundred million dollars and could tear up the BRT lanes and put in street cars.  Modern replica's of the old cars from Euclid Avenue's past.

 

With the new transit in line I would like to see the street grid altered over the years.  The purple lines in the WHD and the orange lines in the new Superior Avenue District represent alterations to the grip.  Narrower streets with wide sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and new streetscapes that incorporate classical styled benches and streetlamps as well as street signs (http://www.vintagepastime.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Vintage-Wall-Street-Sign-245x175.jpg).  I don't propose what they specifically look like, but something that is unique and would make Cleveland's streets stand out.  I think marketing/branding of a city and its streets are very important.

 

New roads also bisect the larger blocks in these areas creating more space for retail, front windows, and more connections (read: Jane Jacobs).

 

In terms of Public Works I would want the Mall finally connected to the North Coast area with an extended land bridge that is the width of Mall C (also, by then can we rename the mall(s) something grand and simple?  Someone once posted Burnham's original name for it... something like that Gateway of Justice or something... 

 

 

Also Public square would be unified into one big 40 acre lot, and traffic would be routed around it.    I would also like to see the Columbus Peninsula used as a downtown recreation area.  We'll have the crew team's boathouse house and the skate park soon enough, I'd like to see more done in this area.

 

 

Then the Colored blocks are private development that I would hope could be spurred by more people moving into the city.  The purple is WHD and lakefront areas I'd hope could be developed.  The blue is "downtown" gateway areas that I want to be developed and not turned into parking lots (read: Stanley Block)  The yellow is an area I think is primed for development, and with the new street car loop I think it will be a great location (near playhouse square)  The green is the avenue district and I would simply like the plan in all its phases to be completed.  This would require a lot of new residents in downtown which in turn would mean more development would be likely in the avenue. 

 

The orange grid is my pet idea which is an entirely new downtown neighborhood.  On the new Superior Street Car line it would be primed for development and because much of this area is empty, there is an almost endless opportunity design a new neighborhood here, and over the long run (Cleveland 2100?) connect along superior between E26 and E12 to form an avenue of residences and retail.

 

 

 

Conclusion:  There isn't the money for this kind of development (transit) of course, but if the city can market itself to the aging suburban population and grow its downtown base, and if it can find ways to plan for longterm mass transit lines, I believe much of the above is less of a dream and more of an ambitious agenda.  It will take money, determination, luck and.... some more luck.  But the areas I've highlighted are all either partially developed, or seeded for it.  Superior is wide enough for street cars to return with little disruption, and there is clearly interest in continuing to grow downtown these days.  Here's to a bright future :drunk:

 

 

 

 

 

Superior and Euclid could one day form a big streetcar loop, since they meet again just past University Circle.

The one thing this whole discussion is missing is the notion of momentum.  We need a spark more than anything else.  Development will follow, not the other way around.  The 'build it and they will come' idea only works for cornfields in Iowa.

 

We will also do well to accept who we are and build to that identity rather than trying to dress us up as something we're not.

 

JMO.  I do like many of the ideas, even if I am not as sour on the BRT as you two seem to be... but, on the other hand, I suppose its lifespan will not extend all the way out to 2050.  That is another thing I think is lost on many... that being that many developments which fit well now under present conditions will be considered outdated and ripe for redevelopment 30-50 yrs from now. 

Hts, I couldn't agree more about "accepting who we are" and building on our identity.

 

I think the issue is that Cleveland does not have a singularly understandable/marketable identity -- and I'd welcome the discussion of this topic to continue here as it is a big part of what Cleveland should be in 40 years.

 

Cleveland has a legitimate claim to Rock n Roll as an identity, and we've cemented that image with the Rock Hall and constant references to Cleveland...rocking.  But it's hard to consider Cleveland's Rock identity the same as New Orleans Jazz, or Nashville Blues.   

 

 

Or like other cities which have obvious identities, NYC is well.. NYC.  Boston is a Port City with heritage walks Harvard and MIT.  Philly is Upenn, Cheesesteaks and old nieghborhoods, DC is the planned garden city capital, Miami is Hot and "Hot", San Fransisco has hippies and trolleys and fleece coats for the bay's wind, Portland is stuck in the 90s and is a cyclist's paradise, Seattle is a place for intellectuals, grunge music, and coffee.

 

(^^ City stereotypes aren't always indicators of reality, but perception affects those who might go to visit or move to a new city)

 

Other identities?  Well, our history is both that of Industry (which really isn't much of a "theme" for a city to embrace) and we also have nationally ranked institutions - but museums, symphonies, and hospitals an identity do not make.

 

We have the Browns of course, Indians and things like the Course of Rocky Colavito.  These are things that make a city great and full of rich heritage, but cannot be a single unifying identity.

 

We were called the Forest City by Alexis de Tocqueville, perhaps an effort to reforest the downtown?  :roll:

 

The city has branded us both the "Comeback City" and "New American City".    Neither is bad, per se, but neither really means anything.  Basically buzz words.

 

I think the Cleveland Rocks image is one of our better ones - and we should really work to bring musicians to the city, and help increase the number of smaller venues that local bands can play in.  Develop the music industry (though it would always be smaller) but work to make the "Rock" and music scene deeper in the city.

 

We are a Lakefront and River divided city, but we know, all too well, the major hurdles to embracing the water front.  I think the area North of Browns stadium is the most likely for now, maybe moving the port could happen one day.  The wide shallow valley of the Cuyahoga will always make large bridges and a significant disconnect between Ohio City/Tremont and Downtown an issue-- but maybe the Superior Streetcar could reuse the lower level of the bridge and connect them again.

 

I'd love to hear what others think Cleveland really means, and what kind of identity should be embraced moving forward.

 

 

 

I've never really jumped on board with the whole Rock and Roll thing. We really dont have that huge of a music scene. Its annoying as hell when people pass us up on their tours. Also I think the city needs to stop focusing on the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame so much. Yes its nice, but its not all we have to offer, and definitely not even near the top of the list. Honestly, Im not even a huge fan of the Hall myself and I love music.

 

That being said, im not sure really what identity we should have. Does it really matter though? Lets just be know for a city that is awesome, not for some quirky catch phrase.

 

When I think of Chicago, the only thing that really comes to mind is the Windy City, but that doesn't make me want to go there. But when I do go there, I see how awesome the city is. I tell other people how nice it is and I think thats the main thing. Basically, Cleveland needs to show how great it is to its own citizens first, and then tourists as well.