February 13, 20232 yr i would guess or hope that bedrock would like to get going on the first three structures asap. that being their new cle bedrock hq and offices building, an apt building and possibly a hotel/casino part deux. the riverfront park access is probably by far of biggest interest for most people, especially the tiered leveling public areas down to the riverfront and the tc connections. that part is going to be significant public money especially as a lot of stepped concrete work needs to be done and the bulkheads or barrier walls will need rebuilt. all the rest is just maybe/we will see/someday filler and i wouldn't give it another thought. not that more development there wont happen eventually. call it a vision guide i guess. so all in all, sounds great. it seems to be a reasonably ambitious and doable plan at long last folks. two thumbs up. Edited February 13, 20232 yr by mrnyc
February 13, 20232 yr 12 minutes ago, KJP said: Bedrock lays out riverfront plan, steps By Ken Prendergast / February 13, 2023 At the City Planning Commission's design-review meeting starting 9 a.m. Friday, representatives of Detroit-based Bedrock are scheduled to present more of its vision for downtown Cleveland's riverfront below Tower City Center. In addition to showing renderings of the buildings and public spaces, Bedrock's architectural team led by Adjaye Associates will lay out a schedule and a menu of items needed for building the infrastructural foundations to support the ambitious riverfront plan. MORE: https://neo-trans.blog/2023/02/13/bedrock-lays-out-riverfront-plan-steps/ Great article/update. Some great images overall but that twilight image above is the stuff of dreams
February 13, 20232 yr I hope the old steam plant makes it into the overall plans some how. Would love to see that structure saved and repurposed.
February 13, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, jbee1982 said: I don't like the layout at all. They just need to make the whole strip into a riverside park. No need for weirdly placed buildings. Focus on more of the empty parking lots further inland, not on the riverside. Agreed. It's too cluttered. And who is going to fill all those buildings? I don't see much demand for office space in the foreseeable future, except for Rocket Mortgage, and possibly Cliffs. New residential seems unlikely as well with so much vacant office space being converted. A new casino would be nice. I hate having JACK in the historic Higbee building. How about adding an amphitheater? It might be a nice way to take advantage of the sloping terrain. It could be sort of a mini-version of Blossom and a classier version of Jacobs Pavilion. Edited February 13, 20232 yr by LibertyBlvd
February 13, 20232 yr Author 18 minutes ago, Chazz Michael Michaels said: Great article/update. Some great images overall but that twilight image above is the stuff of dreams Yup. That's why I picked it for the lead image. Lots of other images in that article. And wouldn't ya know, it appeared here on UO at the bottom of the previous page.... 😤 "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
February 13, 20232 yr Any sense to how much these are massings for the high rises vs. indication of style?
February 13, 20232 yr I like everything about what we've seen so far. Having mixed use near the water edge will make the riverfront a bigger draw. I don't think this needs to be like Irishtown Bend with just green and hardscape.
February 13, 20232 yr 1 minute ago, OldEnough said: Any sense to how much these are massings for the high rises vs. indication of style? my understanding is they are 100% just for visuals since this project is such a long timeline no way they would have any architecture details nailed down 10 years before they can even start thinking about building
February 13, 20232 yr 34 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said: Agreed. It's too cluttered. And who is going to fill all those buildings? I don't see much demand for office space in the foreseeable future, except for Rocket Mortgage, and possibly Cliffs. New residential seems unlikely as well with so much vacant office space being converted. A new casino would be nice. I hate having JACK in the history Higbee building. How about adding an amphitheater? It might be a nice way to take advantage of the sloping terrain. It could be sort of a mini-version of Blossom and a classier version of Jacobs Pavilion. I like the idea of an amphitheater where the buildings are at near the courthouse. Unlike the others that are directly lined up with the streets, those look a little out of place and, in my opinion, more green space/outdoor activities would be great. Plus, who knows if there will be enough demand for those additional buildings? Also, I agree with you regarding JACK in the Higbee Building. I’d love to see an urban Target or a similar grocery and retailer move in and have the city’s casino help fill in the riverfront development. Just my opinion, though.
February 13, 20232 yr That "D." item on the Key Infrastructure Enhancements is something I did not expect to see. Thrilled Bedrock wants to see that space filled!
February 13, 20232 yr I don't like the canal road realignment. Particularly the part where it looks like the road will basically be on the water, which seems like a waste. I'd rather leave the road where it is, and preserve the land from canal to the river as park space.
February 13, 20232 yr 10 minutes ago, Ethan said: I don't like the canal road realignment. Particularly the part where it looks like the road will basically be on the water, which seems like a waste. I'd rather leave the road where it is, and preserve the land from canal to the river as park space. Small image, but I think the intention is to have a "sizeable" boardwalk in between Canal and the water as shown on the right side of the image, this boardwalk leading between the grassy area and the sloped amphitheater to the water at the bend... I understand the sentiment though and I'd imagine the shipping lane has an effect on what they would like to achieve space-wise on the waterfront. Edited February 13, 20232 yr by Geowizical
February 14, 20232 yr 9 minutes ago, Geowizical said: Small image, but I think the intention is to have a "sizeable" boardwalk in between Canal and the water as shown on the right side of the image, this boardwalk leading between the grassy area and the sloped amphitheater to the water at the bend... I understand the sentiment though and I'd imagine the shipping lane has an effect on what they would like to achieve space-wize on the waterfront. While my preference is pretty much always for parks, I could be appeased by a nice, quality boardwalk. That said, if it's on the other side of and parallel to the road it's not going to feel like a boardwalk, but just a large sidewalk. Bedrock clearly wants more space for development, and probably to get their main buildings as close to the water as possible. If they insist on that, I'd rather they build their buildings (casino) over the road, and at least have a proper boardwalk with shops on one side and water on the other. That's way more money, but they are also asking the city to pay quite a lot here for infrastructure improvements that will benefit their properties, so I'm less sympathetic then I'd normally be. I'm also not a fan of a casino on the water. Living near the current one has made me think of casinos as ugly black boxes, without windows, that don't interact with their environment at all. If they do opt to put the casino here, hopefully the river facing amenities are restaurants (or something) and not the cold, hard face of the casino.
February 14, 20232 yr Kind of curious what the new RTA transfer hub will look like along with the expanded CVSR fitting into the area as well
February 14, 20232 yr There’s only so much recreational park space that you can develop near the downtown area and between Edgewater Park, the new Irishtown Bend Park and developments for new recreational areas on the near East side’s lakefront - not to mention possible future developments north of the current Browns stadium - II’m not concerned with a park- type or recreationally oriented riverfront development . I’m just fine with Bedrock’s building- centric and rather dense conceptual presentation. As to who is going to fill all the buildings - let’s remember that this is just a Visionary rendering and chances are, we’ll get only “pieces” of it actually built. I don’t see why a number of fairly tall residential buildings couldn’t eventually locate there. They’d have a dynamic and unique view. Most important- a strategic parcel of long undeveloped land on Cleveland’s “ front porch” now has a possibility of being developed and yielding both significant new buildings and pedestrian friendly plaza areas. Sounds pretty wonderful to me!
February 14, 20232 yr 9 hours ago, KJP said: Yup. That's why I picked it for the lead image. Lots of other images in that article. And wouldn't ya know, it appeared here on UO at the bottom of the previous page.... 😤 That nighttime image reminded me of the Georgetown waterfront in DC, which is packed with people in their 20s all summer. Packed and noisy but not rowdy. I think this boardwalk will be just as popular in Cleveland. Remember: It's the Year of the Snake
February 14, 20232 yr 16 hours ago, jbee1982 said: I don't like the layout at all. They just need to make the whole strip into a riverside park. No need for weirdly placed buildings. Focus on more of the empty parking lots further inland, not on the riverside. Not going to disagree, but they obviously need to incorporate a mix of uses to make it financially viable.
February 14, 20232 yr 15 hours ago, ELaunder said: That "D." item on the Key Infrastructure Enhancements is something I did not expect to see. Thrilled Bedrock wants to see that space filled! Yes, it would be nice to finally see that space filled. It's been an embarrassing eyesore for almost 100 years. 6 hours ago, Dougal said: That nighttime image reminded me of the Georgetown waterfront in DC, which is packed with people in their 20s all summer. Packed and noisy but not rowdy. I think this boardwalk will be just as popular in Cleveland. We had that in the Flats in the 80s. 42 minutes ago, RE Developer In Training said: Not going to disagree, but they obviously need to incorporate a mix of uses to make it financially viable. That was the plan for Flats East Bank. I'm not sure it's turning out that way. Edited February 14, 20232 yr by LibertyBlvd
February 14, 20232 yr I'm not sure I see the wisdom in closing of Huron. Maybe it will make more sense with more detailed renderings, but the road is already a bridge, it isn't impeding pedestrian traffic to the river at all. Really their whole plan with regards to Tower City seems a lot like reinventing the wheel. It might still be the best possible solution, but it's very far from the simplest... The only reason I can see for eliminating Huron is aesthetics. While I agree aesthetics are important, knocking down a functional bridge for purely aesthetic reasons seems insufficient to me. Surely we could dress up the bridge a bit and make it a bit more attractive? And lastly, while I realize the majority of people on this site won't be sympathetic to this point, we should mention traffic. This closure will affect traffic. Huron is currently an overbuilt road serving as a major route for traffic to and from the near west side. I don't think Prospect is well suited to handle all that new traffic, and I don't want to push more cars into public square. The far simpler thing would be to leave Huron, and I tend to be partial to simple solutions. They tend to be cheaper, and easier political lifts, and thus, far more likely to actually happen.
February 14, 20232 yr 33 minutes ago, Ethan said: And lastly, while I realize the majority of people on this site won't be sympathetic to this point, we should mention traffic. This closure will affect traffic. Huron is currently an overbuilt road serving as a major route for traffic to and from the near west side. I don't think Prospect is well suited to handle all that new traffic, and I don't want to push more cars into public square. Agreed. We need to push cars away from Public Square. Hopefully, at some point in the future, Public Square can be unified. So it would be wise to keep Huron available to handle traffic.
February 14, 20232 yr 30 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said: Agreed. We need to push cars away from Public Square. Hopefully, at some point in the future, Public Square can be unified. So it would be wise to keep Huron available to handle traffic. A good rule of thumb for urban planning- when you remove one of the links in a grid, you stress other parts of the grid even more.
February 14, 20232 yr 21 minutes ago, X said: A good rule of thumb for urban planning- when you remove one of the links in a grid, you stress other parts of the grid even more. The intersection of Prospect and Ontario will be a mess if Huron is closed!
February 14, 20232 yr Will the presentation on Friday be streaming?Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
February 14, 20232 yr Author 59 minutes ago, GREGinPARMA said: Will the presentation on Friday be streaming? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Yes. You can watch it live on YouTube. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
February 14, 20232 yr If NYC can close down Times Square, Cleveland can do the same with Huron. When will some of you guys realize that cities should be redesigned for the enhancement of the pedestrian experience, not SUV Karen from Strongsville's commute time. Edited February 14, 20232 yr by Clefan98
February 14, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, X said: A good rule of thumb for urban planning- when you remove one of the links in a grid, you stress other parts of the grid even more. That's a good one. I tried explaining this concept (very poorly) in an Ohio City thread about stress on W.25th St. and basically got assaulted lol. But Public Square is already fairly counterintuitive for drivers. I'd hate to see and hear even more confused cars getting honked at by buses.
February 14, 20232 yr Cleveland has some of the least stressed grids in the country. Shut streets down, create stress and maybe RTA and our sidewalks get a lil busier. 2 hours ago, X said: A good rule of thumb for urban planning- when you remove one of the links in a grid, you stress other parts of the grid even more
February 14, 20232 yr 54 minutes ago, Clefan98 said: Cleveland has some of the least stressed grids in the country. Shut streets down, create stress and maybe RTA and our sidewalks get a lil busier. Not to get too far off topic, but they closed the streets at U of Akron, which was overall a great idea. Unfortunately it also created a pedestrian shunning "ring of steel" on the nearest adjacent street (Exchange) so it's not always so simple. Downtown CLE is not a large area at all, the traffic is going to go somewhere.
February 14, 20232 yr 34 minutes ago, surfohio said: Not to get too far off topic, but they closed the streets at U of Akron, which was overall a great idea. Unfortunately it also created a pedestrian shunning "ring of steel" on the nearest adjacent street (Exchange) so it's not always so simple. Downtown CLE is not a large area at all, the traffic is going to go somewhere. I'm downtown everyday, mostly in and around Tower City, what traffic are you speaking of? I rarely see any. At any rate, Cleveland needs more congestion so people consider other options outside of driving. You're afraid of trading a little short term pain for unrealized long term benefits of the region. Edited February 14, 20232 yr by Clefan98
February 14, 20232 yr Cleveland has some of the least stressed grids in the country. Shut streets down, create stress and maybe RTA and our sidewalks get a lil busier. I’m a fan of this logic. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
February 14, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, MyPhoneDead said: I’m a fan of this logic. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Thanks, it's sound logic and one that our world renowned architect is using, thankfully. Edited February 14, 20232 yr by Clefan98
February 14, 20232 yr 29 minutes ago, Clefan98 said: I'm downtown everyday, mostly in and around Tower City, what traffic are you speaking of? I rarely see any. At any rate, Cleveland needs more congestion so people consider other options outside of driving. You're afraid of trading a little short term pain for unrealized long term benefits of the region. I haven't been downtown since Covid. Do you think downtown's going to remain like a ghost town? Also we better make certain RTA is much much better before making "congestion" our preferred route to a better downtown.
February 14, 20232 yr 5 hours ago, Ethan said: I'm not sure I see the wisdom in closing of Huron. Maybe it will make more sense with more detailed renderings, but the road is already a bridge, it isn't impeding pedestrian traffic to the river at all. Really their whole plan with regards to Tower City seems a lot like reinventing the wheel. It might still be the best possible solution, but it's very far from the simplest... The only reason I can see for eliminating Huron is aesthetics. While I agree aesthetics are important, knocking down a functional bridge for purely aesthetic reasons seems insufficient to me. Surely we could dress up the bridge a bit and make it a bit more attractive? And lastly, while I realize the majority of people on this site won't be sympathetic to this point, we should mention traffic. This closure will affect traffic. Huron is currently an overbuilt road serving as a major route for traffic to and from the near west side. I don't think Prospect is well suited to handle all that new traffic, and I don't want to push more cars into public square. The far simpler thing would be to leave Huron, and I tend to be partial to simple solutions. They tend to be cheaper, and easier political lifts, and thus, far more likely to actually happen. This seems very premature based on such preliminary drawings, but we also have to consider the cost of continuing to maintain Huron behind Tower City as is. What are the maintenance costs of a road on the ground vs. a bridge ("the road is already a bridge")? As another poster observed, most of the time there is little to no traffic on Huron behind Tower City (and you've also stated that it is "overbuilt"), so what are the financial costs of maintaining that overbuilt road/bridge compared to the benefits for the amount of traffic that it carries? Even if we all agree that we don't want more traffic on Public Square, at what price? If we're adding 2 cars per hour and the maintenance costs are $1million/year, is it worth it? (I have no idea what the actual traffic and actual costs are -- I suggest that those should be determined before any decision is made.) I think we are far, far from any decision being made about narrowing or pedestrianizing or closing Huron.
February 14, 20232 yr 2 minutes ago, Foraker said: This seems very premature based on such preliminary drawings, but we also have to consider the cost of continuing to maintain Huron behind Tower City as is. What are the maintenance costs of a road on the ground vs. a bridge ("the road is already a bridge")? As another poster observed, most of the time there is little to no traffic on Huron behind Tower City (and you've also stated that it is "overbuilt"), so what are the financial costs of maintaining that overbuilt road/bridge compared to the benefits for the amount of traffic that it carries? Even if we all agree that we don't want more traffic on Public Square, at what price? If we're adding 2 cars per hour and the maintenance costs are $1million/year, is it worth it? (I have no idea what the actual traffic and actual costs are -- I suggest that those should be determined before any decision is made.) I think we are far, far from any decision being made about narrowing or pedestrianizing or closing Huron. It doesn't look like they're removing the road/bridge, and therefore not removing the maintenance costs. They are severing the link somewhere in the middle, and diverting that traffic onto Prospect. I for one would rather they do traffic calming and right size the number of auto lanes on Huron and Prospect than sever Huron and turn Prospect into a traffic sewer.
February 14, 20232 yr 6 minutes ago, X said: It doesn't look like they're removing the road/bridge, and therefore not removing the maintenance costs. They are severing the link somewhere in the middle, and diverting that traffic onto Prospect. I for one would rather they do traffic calming and right size the number of auto lanes on Huron and Prospect than sever Huron and turn Prospect into a traffic sewer. It's not clear to me but it looks like they are taking out a section of that road/bridge and extending a building there, but yes, I agree. On the optimistic side, adding more residential adjacent a major rail station is something that should be done, and would be far more beneficial to businesses in Tower City and Public Square than the either of the existing roadways, Huron and Prospect.
February 14, 20232 yr ^ Right because how many of those cars are just passing through vs. people changing buses/rail who might actually linger? If the idea is to get more people using TC and the riverfront below it l think the best way is have a reason to actually go there in the first place. After that we can argue about the best way to get them there. I'll always lean to transit or foot but then, l know Americans love their cars so if they can't driv easily they might just not go at all. How to solve that dilemma? Turn us into most every other society that isn't American.
February 14, 20232 yr 41 minutes ago, X said: It doesn't look like they're removing the road/bridge, and therefore not removing the maintenance costs. They are severing the link somewhere in the middle, and diverting that traffic onto Prospect. I for one would rather they do traffic calming and right size the number of auto lanes on Huron and Prospect than sever Huron and turn Prospect into a traffic sewer. We have to also remember the truck traffic that passes through there daily. Most are 12 axle dump trucks. If Huron goes away, they will divert to Prospect, Canal and W 25th.
February 14, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, surfohio said: I haven't been downtown since Covid. Do you think downtown's going to remain like a ghost town? Also we better make certain RTA is much much better before making "congestion" our preferred route to a better downtown. I don't believe the CBD is currently a ghost town. I merely stated traffic isn't that bad, which it isn't. This goes for pre Covid as well. Out of the top 50 US cities, Cleveland ranks nearly last in terms of traffic congestion. This data can easily be found if you don't believe me. Edited February 14, 20232 yr by Clefan98
February 14, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, surfohio said: Also we better make certain RTA is much much better before making "congestion" our preferred route to a better downtown. Because our roads, gas/car prices and parking rates are so much better?
February 14, 20232 yr 20 hours ago, guardianpayroll said: Kind of curious what the new RTA transfer hub will look like along with the expanded CVSR fitting into the area as well Is a new RTA transfer hub part of the plan? I’ve only been able to go off the renderings, haven’t seen the full document yet. That would be great!
February 14, 20232 yr What stands out to me from the article, more than the renderings (although those are awesome), are terms like schedule, development agreements, City Council approval, traffic impact assessment, etc. This is not being discussed as a "pie-in-the-sky" sort of plan. This sounds like a developer taking concrete steps towards making something happen. I know we're still a long way off, and maybe it won't happen, but I'm happy someone's actually taking a real swing.
February 14, 20232 yr 30 minutes ago, BuckeyeNative said: Is a new RTA transfer hub part of the plan? I’ve only been able to go off the renderings, haven’t seen the full document yet. That would be great! I have no inside info on if there is or not. I was just questioning if CVSR is being extended into Cleveland, where would the route be extended to? Does CVSR try and extend into Tower City? Does the extension end somewhere else? I know there is a lot of rail lines that may have light activity on them around the riverfront so I just assumed there is where the CVSR would be extended. If I’m misinforming others, tell me to stuff it.
February 14, 20232 yr 20 minutes ago, guardianpayroll said: I have no inside info on if there is or not. I was just questioning if CVSR is being extended into Cleveland, where would the route be extended to? Does CVSR try and extend into Tower City? Does the extension end somewhere else? I know there is a lot of rail lines that may have light activity on them around the riverfront so I just assumed there is where the CVSR would be extended. If I’m misinforming others, tell me to stuff it. Ken's article says the proposed downtown terminal is the old B&O rail depot (https://maps.app.goo.gl/zkpWQ56hsAMciBgz6) While we're on the subject of the old rail depot, could we bring the clock back?
February 14, 20232 yr I think it’s awesome that we have existing historic infrastructure which has the potential of being reused as the downtown CVSR terminal.
February 15, 20232 yr 6 hours ago, Clefan98 said: If NYC can close down Times Square, Cleveland can do the same with Huron. When will some of you guys realize that cities should be redesigned for the enhancement of the pedestrian experience, not SUV Karen from Strongsville's commute time. I think there’s an important distinction between removing streets completely vs. making them car-free/car-light. Frequent streets/blocks are good for walkability & bikeability, which spaces like Times Square & E 4th maintain while removing car traffic. Huron is overbuilt for car traffic, but still serves as a link between the Gateway District, Warehouse District and Detroit-Superior Bridge (the latter of which will become even more important if the “Low Line” project happens). IIRC Huron was also supposed to be part of the Memorial Bridges Loop trail. 5 hours ago, Clefan98 said: Shut streets down, create stress and maybe RTA and our sidewalks get a lil busier. This is might be true on a small scale, but having more streets overall improves walking and biking which makes car-free living more practical. Creating more “E 4th streets” would still stress car traffic, maybe inducing demand for RTA, while maintaining connections for bikes/pedestrians. But to stay on-topic, removing some or all car lanes from Huron at Tower City could allow easy “core to shore” access without removing the street entirely.
February 15, 20232 yr 4 hours ago, Foraker said: This seems very premature based on such preliminary drawings, but we also have to consider the cost of continuing to maintain Huron behind Tower City as is. What are the maintenance costs of a road on the ground vs. a bridge ("the road is already a bridge")? As another poster observed, most of the time there is little to no traffic on Huron behind Tower City (and you've also stated that it is "overbuilt"), so what are the financial costs of maintaining that overbuilt road/bridge compared to the benefits for the amount of traffic that it carries? Even if we all agree that we don't want more traffic on Public Square, at what price? If we're adding 2 cars per hour and the maintenance costs are $1million/year, is it worth it? (I have no idea what the actual traffic and actual costs are -- I suggest that those should be determined before any decision is made.) I think we are far, far from any decision being made about narrowing or pedestrianizing or closing Huron. I agree with you on the necessity of gathering data and weighing tradeoffs. I also agree about the highly preliminary nature of this plan. This plan is currently a short poem, it will need to become a long novel before it can be built. To clarify what I meant by saying both that Huron is overbuilt, and that it's removal would cause issue: when I say it's overbuilt, I'm referring specifically to the number of lanes. Huron currently has three lanes in each direction. This is overkill (so plenty of room for a downtown bike loop!). Traffic is primarily going to/from Ontario to/from Detroit, the bridge has 1.5 lanes in each direction, and Ontario has two left turn lanes. So the third lane is overkill. The big difference between Huron and Prospect though is precisely those turn lanes. As an example, I came back late tonight (post rush hour) when the light at Ontario/Huron changed there were 10-12 cars waiting to turn left. At the next light at Prospect there were another 5 cars waiting to turn left. There's only space for maybe 10 cars to turn left onto prospect, so even during normal times that intersection will cause issues. There's a similar story going in the other direction as turning right isn't any easier. To be clear, I'm not saying that increasing traffic alone should ever sink any project, just that it should be one small issue considered amongst many. For what it's worth I agree with other posters claiming Cleveland doesn't have much traffic, but I don't agree that sabotaging what is currently (and unfortunately) our most functional form of transit is the way to increase density. I know a lot of people like myself who have jobs out in the suburbs but who choose to live in downtown, Ohio City, Edgewater, etc. If I can't reasonably commute to my job, that's one less person adding density to your neighborhood. That said, I also value walkability, parks, access to nature, etc. I see a ton of value in this plan, and all things being equal I'd take it. I'm just questioning whether a tradeoff is really necessary, or, if in this instance, we could have our cake and eat it too.
February 15, 20232 yr Seeing Bedrock's plan got me wondering what the future public riverfront access will look like if it comes to fruition along with Canal Basin and Irishtown Bend, so I approximated them in Paint on Google Maps. It'll just be so much better in a decade or two if all this stuff actually happens. I think boardwalks along Scranton and Columbus peninsulas are decently likely too, so we could have quality public pedestrian access on both sides of the river from almost the lake all the way to the industrial valley. Current, for reference:
February 15, 20232 yr 13 hours ago, Ethan said: . I know a lot of people like myself who have jobs out in the suburbs but who choose to live in downtown, Ohio City, Edgewater, etc. If I can't reasonably commute to my job, that's one less person adding density to your neighborhood I know a lot of people too, and also live in one of the neighborhoods you've mentioned. Zero of my neighbors/friends/coworkers have this attitude and sentiment when it comes to commuting. Besides, closing Huron won't affect the reserve commute of 99.999% of us living in and around downtown. The fear mongering has to stop or this region will never reach its potential. If you decide not to visit/live in the city because traffic gets a little worse, that's your loss, not the city's. Downtown and the core neighborhoods are going to get much more dense with or without you. Edited February 15, 20232 yr by Clefan98
February 15, 20232 yr 23 hours ago, Ethan said: And lastly, while I realize the majority of people on this site won't be sympathetic to this point, we should mention traffic. This closure will affect traffic. Huron is currently an overbuilt road serving as a major route for traffic to and from the near west side. I don't think Prospect is well suited to handle all that new traffic, and I don't want to push more cars into public square. And let's not forget about the shoreway. If the decision is made to close it, that means more traffic will be flowing through downtown streets.
February 15, 20232 yr 17 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said: And let's not forget about the shoreway. If the decision is made to close it, that means more traffic will be flowing through downtown streets. More senseless fear mongering. Y'all realize humans and cities existed and thrived before cars were invented? It seems like the automobile has wrecked a lot of your minds. Edited February 15, 20232 yr by Clefan98
Create an account or sign in to comment