What kind of a foundation does and aquarium need. I am asking this because the NC Aquarium  at Indian Beach did a pretty substantial renovation a couple of years ago and I know that their giant Salt Water tank is sitting on concrete pilings that go down to bed rock. It is a sand barrier island down there but it seems to me that there would be substantial foundation work at the Power House to support a sizeable display.

What kind of a foundation does and aquarium need. I am asking this because the NC Aquarium  at Indian Beach did a pretty substantial renovation a couple of years ago and I know that their giant Salt Water tank is sitting on concrete pilings that go down to bed rock. It is a sand barrier island down there but it seems to me that there would be substantial foundation work at the Power House to support a sizeable display.

 

Water is 8lbs/gallon. As an example, the surrounded by sharks tunnel at the Newport near Cincy is 385,000 gallons. That 1540 tons, just for water. So building a foundation is a big deal for these places. Also, very slight settling is hard to tolerate because it puts uneven pressure on the seams and cement contact points in the thick acrylic they use to build the displays.

Sounds like Aquariums are best built as new structures where the load can be tolorated by placing appropriate footings.  Doing this in an old/rehabed building sounds like much more work as any change in the structure below can have negative impacts on the above ground building.

I'm less than thrilled by this proposal. I think the "fast food" comparison is an apt one. I'd prefer to wait and have a more substantial aquarium, instead of this thing.

 

At last, a use for the old May Company building.  You could fit whales in there.  Imagine the terra cotta stripped off and  a modern surface applied with glass windows of different shapes giving a view into the tanks from the street, as a teaser. :-D   

Hopefully a little competition will help us get the best aquarium possible for the city.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/06/cleveland_aquarium_inc_plans_d.html

 

Cleveland Aquarium Inc. plans downtown facility, rivaling Jacobs Investment Group proposal

Posted by Patrick O’Donnell/Plain Dealer Reporter June 19, 2009 18:55PM

Tracy Boulian/The Plain Dealer

 

CLEVELAND -- Plans to build a new aquarium in the Flats may soon have direct competition from a long-brewing plan to build one twice as big downtown.

 

 

They make good points there at the end.  Tourists could find the west bank more easily if there were pedestrian bridges from downtown.  The way you have to go on foot is too roundabout. 

competition=good thing

im skeptical about the folks from cleveland aquarium, Inc.  Al these years of sitting on an idea and not doing anything about it and all of a sudden now that someone is proactive they all of a sudden are ready to build too.  Sounds like they should be more proactive instead of reactive.  Ill go with the proactive folks who have aquariums up all over the world.  I cant imagine this one will be half-@ssed

It sounds like the two groups were initially working together.  And it wasn't until Jacobs went public that CAI felt the need to release anything.  Sounds like Jacobs' aquarium would be a possible tie in to one of the casinos that he would like to locate directly next to the power house.

Two aquariums being built anyone??

 

I'd take it to boast downtown  :-D

I would much prefer something from Cleveland Aquarium Inc than Jacobs' plan .. I just think it would make it more of a tourist type of attraction overall than Jacobs' plan.

 

However, until I see something more than simple conjectures and rumors, I'm not getting the least bit excited about either one.

competition=good thing

 

I disagree. That's true for-profit world but not in the nonprofit world. This city has had a hard time supporting one aquarium, let alone two. No group has been able to raise enough money to build an aquarium, and now two groups are going to try to compete for more money? That might happen if our city was suddenly starting to grow again in population and wealth. The competing efforts need to merge.

I am as big of an aquarium fan as you could probably find here, and I would love to see a mammoth 100k+ sqft building. BUT, thats not likely to be viable. Also, if you read the history of the Cleveland Aquarium, they never figured out how to be viable and threw in the towel when the roof started to leak. They basically ran on city funds and generous large donations, with receipts never really putting a dent in the long term development of the aquarium, just daily costs. If we want to have this for more than a few years before we burn through the startup money, it really has to be financially viable on a scale appropriate for Cleveland.

 

The Cleveland Aquarium Inc. group is well meaning and very qualified to care for aquatic animals, but I am not sure they have the financial strength to pull this off.

Ok, here is a letter about why a not-for-profit aquarium operation makes better sense for Cleveland/N.E. Ohio and the region in the long run. Everything is articulated very well in this following letter. Many points are brought up by someone with insight into this profession that most do not have and I hope it serves to educate us on the topic. I have withheld the name of the author for now. I hope this clears up some things and enlightens many.

 

 

I’d like to clear a few things up since there has been tremendous support of our project to bring an aquarium back to Cleveland. As most everyone in the area has heard, there was an announcement made by the Jacob’s Investment Group, that an aquarium is proposed in their powerhouse building on the west bank of the flats. First and foremost is that this proposed Jacob’s aquarium is in no way, shape, or form affiliated with the Cleveland Aquarium, Inc.  The most striking difference between these two projects is that the proposed Jacob’s aquarium project is a private, for-profit aquarium and The Cleveland Aquarium, Inc. is a public, non-profit aquarium dedicated solely as a cultural resource for the city of Cleveland. 

 

We initially approached the Jacob’s Investment Group, among other local development groups, with the possibility of  hosting the new Cleveland Aquarium and there were some continuing discussions.  Recently, however, they developed their own proposal.  There were some discussions on collaborations between the two parties, however upon further examination of their proposal, we believe that it is too limited in size and scope to be successful and we feel that the location is less than ideal.  I hope to summarize the benefits of our project as well as detail more of the differences which I hope you will agree makes The Cleveland Aquarium, Inc. a much better project for the City of Cleveland and its residents.

 

 

 

 

 

Let me start by saying that new Cleveland Aquarium project has a very rich history here in Cleveland.  Some of our supporters and trustees were employees of the fondly remembered original Cleveland Aquarium, which was located in Gordon Park and closed in 1985.  Furthermore, many of the trustees are currently employed at its current “temporary” location at The Cleveland Metroparks Zoo. Combined with the long history of the original Cleveland Aquarium, the legacy of the new Cleveland Aquarium, Inc. is taking into account the future generations of Cleveland families.  For more information on the history of The Cleveland Aquarium and its significant contributions to other public aquariums and the aquarium hobby worldwide, I encourage you to visit our website at www.clevelandaquarium.org.

 

The trustees of the new Cleveland Aquarium, Inc, have been working to bring a public aquarium back to Cleveland for a number of years.  This project has literally thousands of hours from volunteers from the community in acquiring equipment and supplies from both defunct and remodeled aquarium projects including the Pittsburgh Zoo, the Columbus Zoo, the Fortworth Aquarium in Texas and most notably a large selection of tanks and equipment acquired from the former SeaWorld of Ohio.  All of this valuable equipment is currently being stored in warehouses in Cleveland and its surrounding areas awaiting our soon coming announcement of this grand project. 

 

The trustees of the new Cleveland Aquarium, Inc. are dedicated in making this project an iconic cultural institution for Cleveland, not a roadside attraction, which is intended to work in synergy with other local institutions such as the Rock Hall, The Natural History Museum, The Botanical Gardens, The Cleveland Playhouse, The Cleveland  Art Museum, The Cleveland Metroparks Zoo, etc in continuing the educational and intellectual groupings of museums and attractions that Cleveland is well known for.  The non-profit Cleveland Aquarium, Inc. will include much more than fish tanks, it is intended to be a leader in all areas aquatic including research, conservation, education, and contribute significantly to aquatic veterinary advancements and aquatic animal husbandry issues.  Furthermore, it is intended to work closely with the large aquarium hobbyist community that is prevalent in Northern Ohio. 

 

The Cleveland Aquarium, Inc. believes that a non-profit institution ensures that the aquarium will not be profit driven, instead proceeds go to valuable programs in the areas of scientific studies, outreach, saving endangered animals, educational programming, etc.  Typically, these non-revenue generating programs cut into the bottom line profits of for-profit institutions, whose sole goal is to make money for its investors and as a result are often limited in the scope of what they can do.  The trustees of the Cleveland Aquarium, Inc. believe that the goal of a non-profit institution is to educate, conserve, and learn.  Our project does not intend to pay rent, have to return investments, or repay debt.  It will be primarily financed by philanthropy and grants.  The money saved can therefore be spent on the above described programs creating a greater impact in aquatic animal science and education.  Additionally, non-profit institutions are also eligible for a wider variety of research and educational grants than for-profit institutions.

 

The Cleveland Aquarium, Inc. will be a medium sized institution of about 100,000 to 125,000 square feet, similar in size to institutions such as The New England Aquarium, The Newport Aquarium and the original phase of the National Aquarium in Baltimore.  The non profit model of the project is intended to to be an economic engine for the city of Cleveland, by keeping the economic impact in the Cleveland community and not to funnel money out of the area since a significant part of the proceeds are to be spent locally.  One important aspect of the project is that the exhibits will not be “shoehorned” into a building not designed for an aquarium.  This model  has proven unsuccessful in several instances since corrosion and weight issues are vital considerations in a properly designed facility.  The Cleveland Aquarium, Inc. will have many habitats exhibiting a wide variety of freshwater and marine fish, as well as aquatic mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians.

 

The Cleveland Aquarium, Inc. is not only about an aquarium, but a catalyst for downtown development.  It is about creating a lively and attractive place where people in all stages of life and diversity can come to dine, shop, and spend quality time, all the while allowing them to learn and grow in important aquatic related issues. We are committed to the rejuvenation and growth of the Downtown area, and view the Aquarium as a stimulus for a great deal of needed development. To accomplish this goal, we are in collaboration with the world's leading aquarium architect, Peter Chermayeff , who led the modern aquarium renaissance in 1969 with The New England Aquarium in Boston, and has to date designed many of the world’s leading aquarium institutions including the National Aquarium in Baltimore, the Tennessee Aquarium, the Lisbon Aquarium in Portugal, the Osaka Aquarium in Japan, and the Genoa Aquarium in Italy.  Current projects include an aquarium Alexandria, Egypt  and also one in Triast, Italy.       

 

We sincerely hope that you continue to agree with our vision of a truly world class aquarium and will continue to support this project in any way you can.  Please stay tuned for a pending announcement and ways you can help.

By the way, a lot of the equipment in the hands of Cleveland aquarium would likely be used for back-up type facilities.

On the subject of tax monies....  Jacob's plan would likely call for some public financing...

By the way, to add to my above comment... Some of his plan would call for public money. (Jacob's)

 

Anyway, I hope this information I have provided here today helps offer a perspective that until now, has been rather quiet.

Etheostoma Caeruleum or Rainbow Darter (a.k.a. Christopher Bonar?),

 

I applaud what you are trying to do with the C.A., but I feel that you are facing an uphill battle whereas Jacobs can build this on a whim.

 

My suggestion would be to put your philosophical goals on the backburner and work directly with Jacobs to get his part of the aquarium built with the condition that if he gets his casino it includes the rest of the expansion that you are looking for.

 

In particular since you are going to need either public or philantropic contributions to reach your $50 million goal it would benefit you to first work with Jacobs to ensure that at least something gets going...

 

In plain english:

 

In the next five years, unless one of you wins the Powerball/Mega Millions lottery, you guys stand a less than 25% chance of raising $50 million dollars for an aquarium.  In the meantime, by this time next year, you could already have been involved in the development and running of a mini-aquarium which could then be expanded when the time is right.

 

Of course, this is my opinion and I don't expect a couple of paragraphs from my end to change your mind, but please seriously consider what I'm saying.  With your backing, this could be a worthwile venture for all involved.

 

 

 

im skeptical about the folks from cleveland aquarium, Inc.  Al these years of sitting on an idea and not doing anything about it and all of a sudden now that someone is proactive they all of a sudden are ready to build too.  Sounds like they should be more proactive instead of reactive.  Ill go with the proactive folks who have aquariums up all over the world.  I cant imagine this one will be half-@ssed

 

I don't think they were "sitting" on the idea.  They've obviously done a lot of work in fully investigating the idea, researching other facilities, hiring an architect, etc.  They have more ambitious plans than Jacobs and want to do it without public money.  In the middle of a recession, that's a tough sell and they probably wanted to wait out on announcing this.  Bonar's idea sounds a lot more appealing than just shoving an aquarium into the Powerhouse.  The West bank is dead and there aren't easy ways for tourists to get there.  It makes lots of sense for Jacobs as it breathes some life into his property over there but it's not in the best interest of the city and doesn't provide the benefits that such an aquarium should provide.

Hello, First, let me say that I am not Mr. Bonar nor associated in any way with C.A. nor am I speaking on their behalf. But truthfully, one really needs to have worked with or around professional aquarium people, and have worked with such animals to see the flaws in Jacob's idea, or be somewhat familiar with this niche type of work. Bottom line is that it could prove more of an embarrassment to Cleveland for a touristy type aquarium. I know it is tempting, but it is really up to those who do work in such environments to help inform the public that may not be familiar...and this is one reason I place great confidence in C.A. -- Because they have a lot of good people involved with their vision. This is not something you build on a whim, period. Would you rather have an institution that is a grand icon of permanence, or an over-sized pet shop that runs for profit?  I can assure you that the lack of quality here will surface. That leads to displays that will not make the impact they should be making. Also, I believe C.A. did want to work with Jacob's and there was lack of interest on their part. This is another story and I am not at liberty to discuss such things here. Anyway, Such an establishment demands thoughtful and foresighted thinking if you want something we can all be proud of. When it comes to this sort of establishment---build it right, or don't build it at all.

Etheostoma,

 

Again, I don't philosophicaly disagree with you, in fact I very much admire what you are trying to do.  However, you are thinking of this as an "either/or" scenario instead of an "in addition to" scenario.  You are so biased in favor of your project that you fail to even be objective about the Jacobs project.

 

A small list of items that you are failing to consider:

 

- Marinescape has built 21 aquariums all over the world

- Many of them are in places that don't really need an aquarium to still be considered world-class cities

- These cities are not "embarrased" to have a Marinescape-built aquarium

- Many, if not all, are bigger and have way more resources than Cleveland

- Some of these Marinescape aquariums even compete with other aquariums (like in Beijing) and do so succesfully

- Many of them seem to obtain payback of investment in less than two years

- Marinescape builds with eco-friendly objectives

- This thing IS NOT going to be called the Cleveland Aquarium

- It is being called the Nautica Aquarium

- Even if Jacobs misses his target by 70% that still means that at least 120,000 additional people will come to the Flats to see the Nautica Aquarium

 

The list could go on and on...

 

Even if we ignored all the above, what does C.A. seriously bring to the table?

 

How about they tell us:

- How much money they already have for this project?

- What site they have already selected?

- When they expect to have ROI?

 

All three of the above have been discussed by Jacobs/Marinescape, which tells me that you guys are at least three major steps behind on this.

 

Basically, if you shift your perspective you'll be able to see some of the advantages of what Jacobs is trying to do instead of concentrating on the disadvantages.  Then, you can build on those advantages to take it to the next level.  Again, if you want to, by the end of next year you guys could be involved with the planning and running of the Nautica Aquarium.  It is up to you.

 

 

 

Etheostoma,

 

Again, I don't philosophicaly disagree with you, in fact I very much admire what you are trying to do. However, you are thinking of this as an "either/or" scenario instead of an "in addition to" scenario. You are so biased in favor of your project that you fail to even be objective about the Jacobs project.

 

A small list of items that you are failing to consider:

 

- Marinescape has built 21 aquariums all over the world

- Many of them are in places that don't really need an aquarium to still be considered world-class cities

- These cities are not "embarrased" to have a Marinescape-built aquarium

- Many, if not all, are bigger and have way more resources than Cleveland

- Some of these Marinescape aquariums even compete with other aquariums (like in Beijing) and do so succesfully

- Many of them seem to obtain payback of investment in less than two years

- Marinescape builds with eco-friendly objectives

- This thing IS NOT going to be called the Cleveland Aquarium

- It is being called the Nautica Aquarium

- Even if Jacobs misses his target by 70% that still means that at least 120,000 additional people will come to the Flats to see the Nautica Aquarium

 

The list could go on and on...

 

Even if we ignored all the above, what does C.A. seriously bring to the table?

 

How about they tell us:

- How much money they already have for this project?

- What site they have already selected?

- When they expect to have ROI?

 

All three of the above have been discussed by Jacobs/Marinescape, which tells me that you guys are at least three major steps behind on this.

 

Basically, if you shift your perspective you'll be able to see some of the advantages of what Jacobs is trying to do instead of concentrating on the disadvantages. Then, you can build on those advantages to take it to the next level. Again, if you want to, by the end of next year you guys could be involved with the planning and running of the Nautica Aquarium. It is up to you.

 

 

 

 

I think you are also being blind to the fact that it has been mentioned that they did try to work with Jacobs group and were basically unable to agree on the scope of concept.  This is what led Jacobs to MarineScape.  I think it is quite forward to assume that C.A. has to work with Jacobs or be left out in the cold.  These announcements are what 2 weeks old at most, and it does sound like C.A. has some of the peices and parts together.

 

I personally have serious doubts about Jacobs plan.  Not that MarineScape can't put together a solid exibit, but more the location of said exibit.  Water weighs a lot, and there needs to be a lot of water to make quality exibits.  The shifty ground by the river may not be able to support that weight.  I mean look at Irish Bend, its falling into the river.  that should tell you what that the Powerhouse is not sitting on solid footing.

All the factors you point out are valid. I am not associated with C.A.--rather, I am familiar with some people. All that you say has not been considered by C.A. has in fact been considered. It just has not come out in a press release as Jacobs did. The P.H. is not exactly the best suited structure for such a project. It has limitations and you cannot always 'make it fit' or work. I know this is not affiliated in any way with C.A.--but it has certainly piggy-backed off the hard work C.A. has put into this in many years. Jacob's doesn't have the money either. Part of his plan would most likely be publicly funded. I am not saying you must not support his idea--In fact, I hope both can get built so people can see the obvious difference. I would suggest you contacting C.A. and learning more about their vision. I am not at liberty to discuss the kinds of details you want. I do see the advantages from a small tourist attraction viewpoint, but I also realize that most of time, when planning such an attraction around that perspective alone, it usually ends up being something of low quality.

Don't get me wrong.. I want the aquarium...  I just want to see something done right, having worked around the theme for many years. If they build at P.H. Ok, but it will not be the grandiose quality aquarium that will end up knocking everyone's socks off  and put Cleveland on the map. I do recognize the smaller aquariums can have quality--but I am not sold on this idea by a long shot to achieve even that.

cool.  I can't wait for this.  Makes the West Bank an even bigger destination and brings children/teen into the mix.  If they see that their parents like the area, they will grow up not fearing the city or be scared to explore it.

Recently there have been articles about the development of a new Aquarium to be brought to the Downtown Cleveland Area.  Two different groups with two different visions and different locations are struggling to develop what could be a world class destination.  Unfortunately the two groups are not working together, but separately...one developer with a 55,000 sq foot plan, that will never be enough space to house all of the animals, and the other group, Aquatic professionals, with a vision of over 100,000 sq feet.  I was fortunate to be an indirect part of their project, and as a result, I drew a conceptual of the Aquarium located at the Galleria on E. Ninth Street.  It would be such a good reuse of a beautiful building that will never be a shopping mall again. Below are resons why...

 

Why should an aquarium be located in the Galleria?

 

It has been long overdue for Cleveland to boast a world class educational attraction that teaches something to everyone about something we all have in common no matter what our politics, financial background or what walk of life in this world we come from.  That ‘something’ would be about our often taken-for-granted perspective of our dependence on aquatic habitats as being crucial to the existence of all life----and how human activity can impact it.

 

What does the general public, or our political leaders who show up at the office each day really know about the interdependence between streams, rivers, lakes and oceans--and how our health will be a direct reflection of the health of our aquatic habitats?  How many people really know how simple decisions they make on a daily basis can impact the life support systems of the waters of the world and their inhabitants---and eventually our own lives? The answers to these questions are very little.

 

Large scale public aquariums featuring larger than life exhibits make an impact in young and old minds--and stir the imagination to want to learn more about these animals and their environments. Such aquariums generate a better understanding and respect for our underwater world, which leads to fostering a better stewardship for the aquatic environment upon which we depend so much.  For some, a visit to a public aquarium may be as close to the underwater world as they will ever be.

 

Currently, between New York and Chicago, in the northern states, there are not many places to witness such inspirational aquatic life themes. The lack of a public aquarium in a state like Ohio, which boasts over 60,000 miles of streams, and where human activity has certainly taken its toll on these habitats, demonstrates a total lack of regard for how much these environments sacrifice so that we can enjoy the kind of lifestyles we do.

 

Downtown Cleveland presents the perfect opportunity for building a world class public aquarium right in the heart of Northeast Ohio. As most aquariums around the country were built directly on the water to offer an inspiring backdrop, the city of Cleveland lacks property along the lakefront. With the current economic development and political environment in Cleveland these days, priority is lent on building condos or casinos on the waterfront, rather than an attraction whose theme, as mentioned earlier, is of a substance called ’water’ that affects all of us. Perhaps other options can present refreshing opportunities. 

 

This brings to mind the Galleria in downtown Cleveland, a one time thriving upscale mall, now containing offices, art galleries, and a handful of restaurants and specialty retail. It is no surprise that it has struggled in recent times as it tries to re-invent itself, as it has battled against the allure of the Legacy Villages and the like.

 

For starters, the Galleria would be ideal for the new aquarium because it will eventually contain neighborhood foot traffic from those who will live in the area, hence offering the kind of attraction that makes living in such a neighborhood in a downtown setting unique. The area surrounding the Galleria is an emerging neighborhood that will link to Playhouse Square. And, with the neighborhood, will also follow essential retail that can draw even more bodies, as no one who invests heavily in a downtown condo will want to have to drive to the suburbs for their essentials of life.

 

 

The second reason the Galleria is an ideal site is because contrary to the trend of ‘abandon the old and build new’,  the Cleveland Aquarium can demonstrate a more conservation minded example by choosing to take the adaptive re-use of structure that even as it stands now, appears completely in sync with a public aquarium theme. In the day and age of cities all over the country and world demonstrating their own unique example is sustainability, renovating and retrofitting an existing structure, and choosing the philosophy not to encroach on the water with more concrete. This will gain kudos in the conservation community. After all, isn’t the message the aquarium wants to be sending about conservation? Well, this begins with where and how you chose to build. 

 

Adaptive re-use allows planners, architects, artists and so on to reach to the depths of their creativity, to show the world that we do not always have to tear down and build new, to show that we can re-use existing structures which can result in much less taxing of the earth’s resources to construct from scratch. Inadvertently, the aquarium will help keep the urban hub thriving, which in turn can help reverse the trend of our migration of populations encroaching on natural lands. Again, another conservation sublime message that is sent by choosing adaptive re-use options.

 

The third reason I find this site appealing is because of its easy as cake access to ALL major freeways that traverse Cleveland and Northeast Ohio. This is a key element because aquariums are attractions that are visited from all over. There is no way this site is isolated or hard to find or lost amidst a city of tacky lakefront development. It will stand out beckoning to all who pass. Such a location will not be undermined by less austere developments. This attraction deserves to stand out and have a block to itself. Add to this the parking situation. The Galleria has a huge underground ultra clean, secure and heated lot that visitors can easily access, exit their vehicles, and be inside the attraction within a matter of minutes. Additional parking surrounds the entire facility.

 

Moving to reason number four. Here I will mention a host of related reasons: Accommodations, conventions, restaurants, area attractions, and public transport lines. The Galleria is within a 2 to 10 minute walk of several hotels, the site where the new Convention Center and Medical Mart will be constructed, the Great Lakes Science Museum, the Rock ‘N Roll Hall of Fame, and the Cleveland Browns Stadium. We are also in close proximity to Progressive Field, Quicken Loans Arena, and Cleveland State University. The conventions will draw a large amount of people, and many of these people will want to see what kind of attractions is downtown. This would be a massive, classy attraction practically right at their doorstep! The aquarium stands to gain even more foot traffic and visitation from this scenario.

 

Within this same short walk are a myriad of fine restaurants and clubs. Whether you choose to dine within the hotels themselves, at Tower City, at any of the East 4th Street district’s restaurants, or just simply choosing the Aquarium’s own restaurant featured within the Galleria’s main entrance or built in food court where visitors will undoubtedly be able to find a meal of preference. For those who choose to stay for a few days, there is even a grocery store within a short walk. Lastly, the Galleria is located along major bus and rail lines for easy access around the city, or to the airport via the waterfront line.

 

The fifth reason would have to be the fact that inside the Galleria, there is plenty of conference and banquet space available for functions which the aquarium can host. In return, those attending non-aquarium related functions may want to also visit the aquarium. Essentially, the building is a turn key operation in that respect.

 

 

Last but no least, among my favorite reasons for locating a public aquarium in the Galleria lies in the challenge of getting those who are dead set on a structure to be positioned directly on the water, to look at another angle, because I know that the one thing this site lacks is the expected backdrop of the lakefront. To me, this setting might be a bit cliché-ish, but aside from my personal opinion, I do realize this presents a scenario that offers a sour lemon to some. But, let me attempt to make lemonade!

 

 

The Tennessee Aquarium is a success being located near, not exactly right on, a much less imposing body of water (than Lake Erie) to the average eye. This being a river. So is the case for the Newport Aquarium. If those aquariums can be successful situated along the river, why can’t The Cleveland Aquarium be a success that would have a much more imposing body of water, even though not directly on the water……BUT, easily within eyeshot and a quick walk?

 

Lake Erie is less than a 10 minute walk right to the lakefront, and in actuality, because East 9th Street slopes up from the waterfront, one can actually see the spectacular blue ribbon across the horizon from the doorstep of the Galleria. This gives visitors a better perspective of the bigger picture of the lake, more so than being right down on the water, where at eye level, we see mostly the break wall and concrete!

 

The creative challenge here would be to connect the lake, somewhat, even though we are not directly on it; sort of lure it to us.  How can this be achieved? Simple…a platform rising above and stretching directly from out of the Aquarium restaurant partly over East 9th Street. Such a patron observation deck/pavilion could offer places to dine outside, or viewing areas that catch the sunsets, which are spectacular from such a vantage point, as evidenced when standing on the Mall looking out onto the lake. The view is actually better from this point, than being sunken directly on the waterfront.

 

 

All positive points the Galleria offers for housing this attraction should not be passed by for this one simple aspect of it not being directly on the water. As discussed above, by not placing it directly on the water, we can boast the philosophy of choosing to not encroach on the shoreline, and offer all the conservation messages sent when choosing to exercise adaptive re-use of structures. Wal-Mart boasts how “green’ their buildings are these days, BUT, just how ‘green’ are they when they have chosen to not build upon a Brownfield, and instead, clear 60 acres of green, pave it, then tell us how ‘green’ they are! Think about it! Again, the message of adaptive re-use is sustainability/conservation/less impact on the environment.

 

 

Other factors to consider are that those who are planning the Cleveland Aquarium can avoid a lot of the political red tape that often results in so many projects being delayed in this city, by the typical ‘pass the buck’ mentality that is a regular practice of Northeast Ohio politics. Why wait for the city to work to help acquire land right near the lake, when as mentioned earlier, their priorities are not on focusing on such an environmental attraction. We have a sustainability manager in the city who obviously thinks it’s a great idea to be using lawn chemicals on public grounds right near the water! Working with a ready and willing private entity, can avoid so many potential complications and pitfalls. Do we want this to be another Med Mart drama? Cleveland has lacked a designated public aquarium since the mid 1980’s. The Aquarium people really have nothing since then to boast about in their portfolio to warrant either city or public support that will result in a rolling out of the red carpet.

 

The Great waters attempt failed in the 90’s only to result in the Rock Hall gaining center stage on the harbor, when at the time; I was in total support of the aquarium getting that spot. This should have taught us where the priorities amongst the movers and shakers are here in the city. Maybe taking smaller steps right now and by configuring the Galleria to accommodate the aquarium and maintain the aquarium theme throughout the building, it will offer a demonstration of what private and grass roots efforts (which is how the original aquarium came to be) can do to get something grand accomplished; something that will actually be a crown jewel attraction in Cleveland at a time when attitudes are negative and hopes grim about getting anything done----and at a time when the best some can offer for the panacea to our economic woes is to follow the bandwagon of mediocrity and build a casino! I think that is pathetic and shows an utterly nauseating lack of creativity in re-inventing a city, BUT, that is another story and debate.

 

For now, let’s not ignore the opportunity that could set the stage for the ultimate support for such an attraction in the long term future. Cleveland should not have to wait another 5 or 10 years to get what has been long overdue.  There is more of what the aquarium group says it needs surrounding such a facility---at the Galleria site right NOW---than what is on the lakefront right now! So, let’s not let this opportunity pass.

 

vpoole,

 

Welcome to UO!

 

So you know, we already have a Downtown Cleveland Aquarium thread. 

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,15791.120.html

 

I'm sure the Mods will move your post over.

Thanks

Ideally, I would still want it on the water somehow, but (putting financials aside) the Galleria is a better idea than the Powerhouse IMHO b/c it would be more clustered with our other tourist attractions (GLSC and RRHOF).  The foot traffic up and down E 9th from the Stadium to NCH would be impressive.

Ideally, I would still want it on the water somehow, but (putting financials aside) the Galleria is a better idea than the Powerhouse IMHO b/c it would be more clustered with our other tourist attractions (GLSC and RRHOF).  The foot traffic up and down E 9th from the Stadium to NCH would be impressive.

 

This is true, but we need to remember that the powerhouse aquarium is NOT the Cleveland aquarium.

 

I don't see a problem with have the powerhouse as a boutique aquarium and a larger aquarium/aquatic/marine learning center on NCH.  East Ninth is hideous to me.

"boutique aquarium" ? That's a new one for me.

 

The Galleria location is intriguing.

"boutique aquarium" ? That's a new one for me.

 

The Galleria location is intriguing.

 

it's called marketing and branding boo.

 

Since the aquarium is so small, they have revolving exhibits. 

 

Can someone explain to me in detail, why we cannot have two aquariums?

The above was just a concept and option pitched to Cleveland Aquarium--and was not and is not necessarily their view. However, I feel if there were many who would support the concept of one in the Power House, this idea blows that one away. Notice the waterfalls on the building...the perched observation platform in the front, functioning rooftop gardens, and 'people aquarium' windows.  I do not believe the PH idea would incorporate any of that. I do know one thing, if such a facility were to be located in an existing structure, the galleria is far more suitable, hands down.

 

On another note...  The idea of 'boutique' and 'public aquarium' should not be in the same sentence. That philosophy always results in disaster for the aquatic displays and animals. Those in the know and who have worked around such for a long time understand that. It results in the "Can I have an aquarium hanging on my wall about 5 inches wide to look like a picture so I can fill it with piranhas?"  :cry:

How would an aquarium at the Galleria compare in size (square footage) to the Jacobs and the Cleveland Aquarium proposals?

The above was just a concept and option pitched to Cleveland Aquarium--and was not and is not necessarily their view. However, I feel if there were many who would support the concept of one in the Power House, this idea blows that one away. Notice the waterfalls on the building...the perched observation platform in the front, functioning rooftop gardens, and 'people aquarium windows'  I do not believe the PH idea would incorporate any of that. I do know one thing, if such a facility were to be located in an existing structure, the galleria is far more suitable, hands down.

 

On another note...  The idea of 'boutique' and 'public aquarium' should not be in the same sentence. That philosophy always results in disaster for the aquatic displays and animals. Those in the know and who have worked around such for a long time understand that. It results in the "Can I have an aquarium hanging on my wall about 5 inches wide to look like a picture so I can fill it with piranhas in it?"  :'(

 

So why do some cities have two and they work nicely??  Why is it necessary to have a defeatist attitude from jump instead of noting that these venues can have two different functions.  And cater to both groups, with the smaller venue having specifi exhibits and the larger being similar to the metro parks zoo with research and learning centers.  If built, marketed and executed propertly, they both can be viable attractions.

"boutique aquarium" ? That's a new one for me.

 

The Galleria location is intriguing.

 

it's called marketing and branding boo.

 

Since the aquarium is so small, they have revolving exhibits. 

 

Can someone explain to me in detail, why we cannot have two aquariums?

 

Sure, you can have two... But why? If one is done right? This is not a competition between two entities. Part of the point of discussing this to clearly show the differences between two philosophies--one, chamber driven, the other a more 'museum-ish' vision. Personally, I'll take the latter because the former always reveals its flaws, and the animals usually pay for it. I don't like mixing "marketing" and "aquatic conservation" in the same sentence.

 

 

The above was just a concept and option pitched to Cleveland Aquarium--and was not and is not necessarily their view. However, I feel if there were many who would support the concept of one in the Power House, this idea blows that one away. Notice the waterfalls on the building...the perched observation platform in the front, functioning rooftop gardens, and 'people aquarium windows' I do not believe the PH idea would incorporate any of that. I do know one thing, if such a facility were to be located in an existing structure, the galleria is far more suitable, hands down.

 

On another note... The idea of 'boutique' and 'public aquarium' should not be in the same sentence. That philosophy always results in disaster for the aquatic displays and animals. Those in the know and who have worked around such for a long time understand that. It results in the "Can I have an aquarium hanging on my wall about 5 inches wide to look like a picture so I can fill it with piranhas in it?"   :'(

 

So why do some cities have two and they work nicely?? Why is it necessary to have a defeatist attitude from jump instead of noting that these venues can have two different functions. And cater to both groups, with the smaller venue having specifi exhibits and the larger being similar to the metro parks zoo with research and learning centers. If built, marketed and executed propertly, they both can be viable attractions.

 

I bet you could rent out a smaller aquarium for private events too.  Personally, I think it'd be pretty popular, especially since the powerhouse is already a hotspot for catered events.

How would an aquarium at the Galleria compare in size (square footage) to the Jacobs and the Cleveland Aquarium proposals?

 

It could be more than double the size.

How would an aquarium at the Galleria compare in size (square footage) to the Jacobs and the Cleveland Aquarium proposals?

 

The Galleria location would be about twice as large. 

 

I wonder if public funds would be sought after with this location, as with the powerhouse?

 

MTS- I would think this town could support both a boutique aquarium and larger aquarium on both sides of downtown.  Having two aquariums could boost interest in the development of our lakefront, along with drawing further interest to our largest asset as a region.

The above was just a concept and option pitched to Cleveland Aquarium--and was not and is not necessarily their view. However, I feel if there were many who would support the concept of one in the Power House, this idea blows that one away. Notice the waterfalls on the building...the perched observation platform in the front, functioning rooftop gardens, and 'people aquarium windows'  I do not believe the PH idea would incorporate any of that. I do know one thing, if such a facility were to be located in an existing structure, the galleria is far more suitable, hands down.

 

On another note...  The idea of 'boutique' and 'public aquarium' should not be in the same sentence. That philosophy always results in disaster for the aquatic displays and animals. Those in the know and who have worked around such for a long time understand that. It results in the "Can I have an aquarium hanging on my wall about 5 inches wide to look like a picture so I can fill it with piranhas in it?"  :'(

 

So why do some cities have two and they work nicely??  Why is it necessary to have a defeatist attitude from jump instead of noting that these venues can have two different functions.  And cater to both groups, with the smaller venue having specifi exhibits and the larger being similar to the metro parks zoo with research and learning centers.  If built, marketed and executed propertly, they both can be viable attractions.

 

It is not a defeatist attitude. If you want to see something we can all really be proud of...You really should read the letter that outlines the CA vision. My question is why act so desperate to latch onto this PH thing? Like the old saying goes.. "There is never enough time to do it right the first time...But always enough time to do it over"

How would an aquarium at the Galleria compare in size (square footage) to the Jacobs and the Cleveland Aquarium proposals?

 

The Galleria location would be about twice as large.

 

I wonder if public funds would be sought after with this location, as with the powerhouse?

 

MTS- I would think this town could support both a boutique aquarium and larger aquarium on both sides of downtown. Having two aquariums could boost interest in the development of our lakefront, along with drawing further interest to our largest asset as a region.

 

I agree.  I think one in the powerhouse could cater towards more of a hands-on experience, while a larger aquarium (and the galleria is an intriguing proposal) would be the crazy elementary-school field trip one :)

Please read reply #151

 

With its limitations, would you want to see a PH aquarium end up failing and be yet another stupid shot people can take at Cleveland failures? IMHO..with the PH concept and what drives it...You're really asking for it.

 

The above was just a concept and option pitched to Cleveland Aquarium--and was not and is not necessarily their view. However, I feel if there were many who would support the concept of one in the Power House, this idea blows that one away. Notice the waterfalls on the building...the perched observation platform in the front, functioning rooftop gardens, and 'people aquarium windows'  I do not believe the PH idea would incorporate any of that. I do know one thing, if such a facility were to be located in an existing structure, the galleria is far more suitable, hands down.

 

On another note...  The idea of 'boutique' and 'public aquarium' should not be in the same sentence. That philosophy always results in disaster for the aquatic displays and animals. Those in the know and who have worked around such for a long time understand that. It results in the "Can I have an aquarium hanging on my wall about 5 inches wide to look like a picture so I can fill it with piranhas in it?"  :'(

 

So why do some cities have two and they work nicely??  Why is it necessary to have a defeatist attitude from jump instead of noting that these venues can have two different functions.  And cater to both groups, with the smaller venue having specifi exhibits and the larger being similar to the metro parks zoo with research and learning centers.  If built, marketed and executed propertly, they both can be viable attractions.

 

It is not a defeatist attitude. If you want to see something we can all really be proud of...You really should read the letter that outlines the CA vision. My question is why act so desperate to latch onto this PH thing? Like the old saying goes.. "There is never enough time to do it right the first time...But always enough time to do it over"

 

Again, why can't we have TWO well done venues??? 

 

Saying we can't is like saying - I'm throwing in a retail analogy - that we can only have one mall.

 

Beachwood exist and so does Southland.  There serve two different communities and two different target audiences, but both are malls with some overlaping stores.

The above was just a concept and option pitched to Cleveland Aquarium--and was not and is not necessarily their view. However, I feel if there were many who would support the concept of one in the Power House, this idea blows that one away. Notice the waterfalls on the building...the perched observation platform in the front, functioning rooftop gardens, and 'people aquarium windows'  I do not believe the PH idea would incorporate any of that. I do know one thing, if such a facility were to be located in an existing structure, the galleria is far more suitable, hands down.

 

On another note...  The idea of 'boutique' and 'public aquarium' should not be in the same sentence. That philosophy always results in disaster for the aquatic displays and animals. Those in the know and who have worked around such for a long time understand that. It results in the "Can I have an aquarium hanging on my wall about 5 inches wide to look like a picture so I can fill it with piranhas in it?"  :'(

 

So why do some cities have two and they work nicely??  Why is it necessary to have a defeatist attitude from jump instead of noting that these venues can have two different functions.  And cater to both groups, with the smaller venue having specifi exhibits and the larger being similar to the metro parks zoo with research and learning centers.  If built, marketed and executed propertly, they both can be viable attractions.

 

It is not a defeatist attitude. If you want to see something we can all really be proud of...You really should read the letter that outlines the CA vision. My question is why act so desperate to latch onto this PH thing? Like the old saying goes.. "There is never enough time to do it right the first time...But always enough time to do it over"

 

Again, why can't we have TWO well done venues??? 

 

Saying we can't is like saying - I'm throwing in a retail analogy - that we can only have one mall.

 

Beachwood exist and so does Southland.  There serve two different communities and two different target audiences, but both are malls with some overlaping stores.

 

Are you reading? Go back and read my posts again. The mall analogy is poor. We have built too many malls in N.E. Ohio, and look how many are struggling or empty. Apply the similar concept here.

vpoole-  Has the group you were a part of approached any city leaders about your concept?  How probable is it that it would come to fruition, one day?

 

 

The above was just a concept and option pitched to Cleveland Aquarium--and was not and is not necessarily their view. However, I feel if there were many who would support the concept of one in the Power House, this idea blows that one away. Notice the waterfalls on the building...the perched observation platform in the front, functioning rooftop gardens, and 'people aquarium windows'  I do not believe the PH idea would incorporate any of that. I do know one thing, if such a facility were to be located in an existing structure, the galleria is far more suitable, hands down.

 

On another note...  The idea of 'boutique' and 'public aquarium' should not be in the same sentence. That philosophy always results in disaster for the aquatic displays and animals. Those in the know and who have worked around such for a long time understand that. It results in the "Can I have an aquarium hanging on my wall about 5 inches wide to look like a picture so I can fill it with piranhas in it?"  :'(

 

So why do some cities have two and they work nicely??  Why is it necessary to have a defeatist attitude from jump instead of noting that these venues can have two different functions.  And cater to both groups, with the smaller venue having specifi exhibits and the larger being similar to the metro parks zoo with research and learning centers.  If built, marketed and executed propertly, they both can be viable attractions.

 

It is not a defeatist attitude. If you want to see something we can all really be proud of...You really should read the letter that outlines the CA vision. My question is why act so desperate to latch onto this PH thing? Like the old saying goes.. "There is never enough time to do it right the first time...But always enough time to do it over"

 

Again, why can't we have TWO well done venues??? 

 

Saying we can't is like saying - I'm throwing in a retail analogy - that we can only have one mall.

 

Beachwood exist and so does Southland.  There serve two different communities and two different target audiences, but both are malls with some overlaping stores.

 

Are you reading? Go back and read my posts again. The mall analogy is poor. We have built too many malls in N.E. Ohio, and look how many are struggling or empty. Apply the similar concept here.

 

the mall anology works, because it's not tied to NE Ohio, but malls in general.

 

Tu entendía lo que escribí???

Wow, that would be a terrific re-use of the Galleria.  Probably wouldn't even need to use the whole thing either, so you could consolidate tenants in the rest of the buildings.  I know this is the minority view, but I really don't care if the aquarium is built near the lake.  Considering that most of the exhibits will be salt water (I presume) or fresh water tropical, I find the lake proximity thing kind of a superficial association.  I would much rather see new anchors like this built in areas that could reinforce existing urban amenities and add some street life to downtown.

 

Because any aquarium proposal will require significant public dollars to start up, and may require public dollars for operation, there is no way that two will get built.  I don't think it's defeatist, I think it's prudent public finance and I think it's reality, and I think that is just fine.  And if the city does back the CA proposal, IMHO, there is zero chance the "boutique" people will be able or willing to build a second aquarium.

I think it is conceivable to have two but they could not be the two proposals that we are talking about at the Galleria and Power House. The analogy that keeps popping in my head is the GL Science Center and The Cleveland Children's Museum on University Circle.

If you don have kids stay with me. The GLSC is at least 10 times larger than the Children's Museum and is more of a day trip or a 3 or 4 hours at a time affair, while the Children's Museum is an hour or maybe two hours tops at time. Both are hands on education oriented but GLSC is much more science driven including exhibits aimed at adults while the Children's museum is geared entirely at children and is more educational experiences on a shoestring budget. This work because there is an overlap but the differences (size, time, $$$) make for two different experiences.

 

Anyway I just think the proposals are too close in scope to coexist.  There needs to be several orders of magnitude between them. Plus I think the Power House would be a nightmare to put it in.

 

Wow, that would be a terrific re-use of the Galleria.  Probably wouldn't even need to use the whole thing either, so you could consolidate tenants in the rest of the buildings.  I know this is the minority view, but I really don't care if the aquarium is built near the lake.  Considering that most of the exhibits will be salt water (I presume) or fresh water tropical, I find the lake proximity thing kind of a superficial association.  I would much rather see new anchors like this built in areas that could reinforce existing urban amenities and add some street life to downtown.

 

Because any aquarium proposal will require significant public dollars to start up, and may require public dollars for operation, there is no way that two will get built.  I don't think it's defeatist, I think it's prudent public finance and I think it's reality, and I think that is just fine.  And if the city does back the CA proposal, IMHO, there is zero chance the "boutique" people will be able or willing to build a second aquarium.

 

Good comments. There will be some indigenous exhibits--as most good aquariums have to better educate people on their local aquatic resources and to generate a better respect and involvement in their conservation/protection. The Tennessee Aquarium ties them all in from mountain stream habitat all the way to the Atlantic Ocean and beyond. It is really clever! It would contain habitats from around the world.

 

Personally, like you, I am not insistent "it MUST be on the water" I like the idea of adaptive reuse and to follow the 'non-shoreline' encroachment philosophy as outlined in that essay above attached to the photo---which New Orleans probably wished it had followed several lifetimes ago! I think by doing something right the first time is what will gain better long term public support for such---rather than jumping on the desperate 'let's get this aquarium done quickly at the PH'  parade.

 

There is little margin for error in having an aquarium fail. If it does, general perception would likely shun any future attempts with a mentality of.. "Awww..we tried that before and it failed" Such perception could result from a lack of public understanding between two very different approaches and philosophies. That we do not need. An aquarium is not 'just an aquarium' There is so much more than water and being an over-sized aquarium store.