The unmentioned thing in this conversation is that retail is almost always more expensive downtown. If it isn't more convenient why go to a downtown mall? Most people base their shopping decisions on some combination of cost, convenience, and enjoyment. Downtown retail tends to lose on cost to suburban shopping (I assume due to rent prices) both of which lose to online shopping. 

 

Tower City needs to up its numbers in one of those three areas to be competitive. I'm skeptical there's much they can do to reliably be more enjoyable, so that leaves cost and convenience. Getting more people to live in close proximity solves the convenience problem, hence why Bedrock wants to develop the river. Costs would require lower rents, which I assume would require lower property tax assessments? Idk, this type of economic manipulation rarely seems to work well, and even if it did, it would reek of favoritism and corporate welfare. 

 

Having more nearby residents willing to pay convenience prices for local shopping seems to me like Tower City's light at the end of the tunnel. I don't personally think conversion into a business park or any other new idea is likely to succeed. Hold the ship steady and build some new units!

Cleveland’s economy grew briskly in the 90s but that wasn’t a given at the start of the decade. In fact, we have more jobs than 1990 and cuyahoga county is finally gaining individuals 25-40 years (since 2010) which was not the case since before the 70s. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Ethan said:

The unmentioned thing in this conversation is that retail is almost always more expensive downtown. If it isn't more convenient why go to a downtown mall? Most people base their shopping decisions on some combination of cost, convenience, and enjoyment. Downtown retail tends to lose on cost to suburban shopping (I assume due to rent prices) both of which lose to online shopping. 

 

Tower City needs to up its numbers in one of those three areas to be competitive. I'm skeptical there's much they can do to reliably be more enjoyable, so that leaves cost and convenience. Getting more people to live in close proximity solves the convenience problem, hence why Bedrock wants to develop the river. Costs would require lower rents, which I assume would require lower property tax assessments? Idk, this type of economic manipulation rarely seems to work well, and even if it did, it would reek of favoritism and corporate welfare. 

 

Having more nearby residents willing to pay convenience prices for local shopping seems to me like Tower City's light at the end of the tunnel. I don't personally think conversion into a business park or any other new idea is likely to succeed. Hold the ship steady and build some new units!

 

Tower City was sweet in the late 90s.  I worked in Maple Heights and whenever I could pull off a 90 instead of 60 minute lunch I was down there, bypassing Randall Park Mall.   I knew a couple of people who had kiosks, and there were several stores where I regularly spent money.   Plus the food court options were great and carryable back to work, and let's be real to a younger sometimes kinda shallow guy the "scenery" far exceeded RPM.  :)

 

The thing is, even then I heard stories that it wasn't so great after about 3pm and that continued.   That's when the downtown workers would be expected to shop.   The trend proceeded against outdoor malls and most of the various aspects of that were magnified at TC.

 

 

16 hours ago, surfohio said:

 

Not saying you're wrong at all. But there has to be more to it than that, because same thing happened to downtown malls in Columbus and San Diego. 

Unless you have a big enough population within walking distance or an easy transit ride, which few US cities have, I don't think any Downtown shopping district can really survive long term. You get the initial boost from being the newest mall in the region that everyone wants to check out. But after that initial wave passes in 10 years, you're now just a less convenient shopping center to get to, and the only one that charges for parking. The nicer stores jump ship to the next new mall in the area, and it's hard to recover after that. 

31 minutes ago, PlanCleveland said:

Unless you have a big enough population within walking distance or an easy transit ride, which few US cities have, I don't think any Downtown shopping district can really survive long term. You get the initial boost from being the newest mall in the region that everyone wants to check out. But after that initial wave passes in 10 years, you're now just a less convenient shopping center to get to, and the only one that charges for parking. The nicer stores jump ship to the next new mall in the area, and it's hard to recover after that. 

 

I agree with this premise. I was just in Philadelphia and was SHOCKED at the amount of retail developments doing well and realized, simply, that more numbers incentivizes development. For instance, a Lifetime fitness opened in a mainline suburb I was visiting which was 1) cheaper than my gym, 2) offered more amenities (pool, child care, spa, restaurant, etc.), and 3) had better hours - I kept saying "why isn't this done in Cleveland?!?" and realized there are maybe 1 or 2 locations in the whole metro with a dense (and well-off) enough population to make that profitable. 

 

That's been another issue of sprawl. We have a relatively large metro area, but the localized numbers make development harder. 

2 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

That's been another issue of sprawl. We have a relatively large metro area, but the localized numbers make development harder. 

 

Absolutely.  Chain stores will typically look at the number of people living within so many minutes of a proposed location, and the wealth of those individuals -- are there enough people in my target audience who are nearby and have sufficient resources to buy from me?  Density increases your odds of being an attractive location for whatever business you're hoping to attract.

 

(If you want to live in the country and do all of your shopping at Amazon, that's fine too.)

The critical mass number has changed dramatically since online ordering and delivery has taken over.  Despite seeing the increased residential population downtown, you oftentimes see very few people on the street.  Primarily because their food and consumer items are being delivered from outside locations.  

3 hours ago, Jenny said:

The critical mass number has changed dramatically since online ordering and delivery has taken over.  Despite seeing the increased residential population downtown, you oftentimes see very few people on the street.  Primarily because their food and consumer items are being delivered from outside locations.  

 

Which kind of negates the fun part of living down there lol

7 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

 

Which kind of negates the fun part of living down there lol

Very much so!  Brick and mortar retail has shuttered locations in thriving suburban areas simply because there isn't much demand given their online orders surpass their "through the door" business.  Urban areas that have legacy retail from redevelopment that took place 30 years ago may be able to hold on to some of that, but areas that are emerging now may have a hard time enticing retail.  Outside of coffee that is awful to have delivered.  And of course hair dressers, dentists and other medical needs.  etc.  

On 7/11/2024 at 5:23 AM, bwheats said:

Cleveland’s economy grew briskly in the 90s but that wasn’t a given at the start of the decade. In fact, we have more jobs than 1990 and cuyahoga county is finally gaining individuals 25-40 years (since 2010) which was not the case since before the 70s. 

 

 

V-tac with a PVC?

Isn’t the presentation today?

2 hours ago, JB said:

Isn’t the presentation today?

Yes, here’s what seems to be some updated plans. Feels like less buildings (no complaints). 

 

Edited July 12, 2024Jul 12 by BoomerangCleRes

They touched on the work they’re doing to get the CVSR station and say there’s an ongoing study but they’ve identified the location below as a potential station (apologies if Ken already said this before)

 

Commission challenged them to do something different from Solstice steps as we have enough and think of something else besides an amphitheater as that exists on the river already 

 

showed off 8 different interactions along the river (love the big trees!)

Edited July 12, 2024Jul 12 by BoomerangCleRes

If they think there’s a better option than solstice steps for the space fine - what is it?  And I’m not necessarily saying their wrong - but because we have them in other places is not a good reason as far as I’m concerned to not do them here. 

breakdown of possible/probable uses for each building 

 

does make me wonder what type of retail would bedrock be able to attract, this seems like a very high quality project makes me think they’d be looking for high end retail like the design district in Miami. 

Edited July 12, 2024Jul 12 by BoomerangCleRes

Park acreage and outline of riverwalk

That sledding hill 🛷is going to keep parents busy fishing their children out of the river when they go over the bulkhead.  

52 minutes ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

Commission challenged them to do something different from Solstice steps as we have enough and think of something else besides an amphitheater as that exists on the river already 

 

showed off 8 different interactions along the river (love the big trees!)

I was only half listening so maybe I missed something, but I believe your portrayal is a bit of an exaggeration.  As far as I recall there was no extended discussion or consensus by the "Commission" regarding steps as a design element.  If I recall correctly it was just brought up by one member and seemed to me to be more of a passing comment.

Edited July 12, 2024Jul 12 by Htsguy

anyone got a link?

3 hours ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

Yes, here’s what seems to be some updated plans. Feels like less buildings (no complaints).

99% sure its the same number of buildings in the same configuration. Nothing in that regard has changed since the initial Adjaye renders, which are still being used.

2 hours ago, Htsguy said:

I was only half listening so maybe I missed something, but I believe your portrayal is a bit of an exaggeration.  As far as I recall there was no extended discussion or consensus by the "Commission" regarding steps as a design element.  If I recall correctly it was just brought up by one member and seemed to me to be more of a passing comment.

I also watched and got the same impression. I personally don't have a problem with the steps/amphitheater either way, but even just extending the riverwalk continuously around the bend and adding in more lawn space instead would be a fine replacement IMO.

2 hours ago, Whipjacka said:

anyone got a link?

Presentation starts 55 min in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10O2aWhZDy4

If we get half of that l'll still be pleased.

Has anyone been able to find/download the presentation file? It doesn't seem to have made it on to the City Planning website yet.

On 7/11/2024 at 8:01 AM, E Rocc said:

 

Tower City was sweet in the late 90s.  I worked in Maple Heights and whenever I could pull off a 90 instead of 60 minute lunch I was down there, bypassing Randall Park Mall.   I knew a couple of people who had kiosks, and there were several stores where I regularly spent money.   Plus the food court options were great and carryable back to work, and let's be real to a younger sometimes kinda shallow guy the "scenery" far exceeded RPM.  :)

 

The thing is, even then I heard stories that it wasn't so great after about 3pm and that continued.   That's when the downtown workers would be expected to shop.   The trend proceeded against outdoor malls and most of the various aspects of that were magnified at TC.

 

 

 

Can't imagine they were charging $20-$30 for parking back then. I almost pulled in for a quick stop at TC this year but just laughed when I saw the parking prices and turned back around. 

15 minutes ago, Ethan said:

Has anyone been able to find/download the presentation file? It doesn't seem to have made it on to the City Planning website yet.

 

They're here....

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/drc6fnuum4x0dgej2sbsu/ABhCvTVL3aAc7pAqiZrVBU8/Special Presentations?rlkey=plvxjvskid08x4x7j27xn32t8&e=7&subfolder_nav_tracking=1&dl=0

 

The City Planning Commission web site hasn't recovered since City Hall got hit by the ransomware.

Overall looks good! Happy to see it move forward. There's a bit of a contradiction in the report regarding travel direction of the lanes on Huron. I'm assuming the more simple one in each direction is what is intended/will happen, but it's unclear from the document. 

 

 

1 hour ago, ASP1984 said:

 

Can't imagine they were charging $20-$30 for parking back then. I almost pulled in for a quick stop at TC this year but just laughed when I saw the parking prices and turned back around. 

 

I don't remember it being anywhere near that bad. And back then if you bought anything your receipts would count toward parking.  

11 minutes ago, Ethan said:

Overall looks good! Happy to see it move forward. There's a bit of a contradiction in the report regarding travel direction of the lanes on Huron. I'm assuming the more simple one in each direction is what is intended/will happen, but it's unclear from the document. 

 

I hope it is an error, and not some attempt to reinvent how intersections work. 

On 7/12/2024 at 4:52 PM, BoomerangCleRes said:

Do we know why they show structures on the Nucleus site? 

 

2 hours ago, WhatUp said:

Do we know why they show structures on the Nucleus site? 

 

 

Nucleus 5.0 confirmed?!?!?!?  /s

Changes to the Riverfront plan. https://www.crainscleveland.com/real-estate/latest-bedrock-plan-riverfront-makes-changes-hints-future-development

On 7/12/2024 at 4:04 PM, BoomerangCleRes said:

They touched on the work they’re doing to get the CVSR station and say there’s an ongoing study but they’ve identified the location below as a potential station (apologies if Ken already said this before)

 

 

In my opinion the report offers the most meager scraps in terms of connecting the CVSR.  This is a huge missed opportunity.  It relegates a possible connection to the farthest southeast corner of the project, barely within downtown.  This site is vertically removed from the rest of downtown; anyone on foot would have a hike uphill.  Its also completely disconnected from the transit hub at Tower City.  If these two rail services could connect to each other they would multiply in value and utility.  Once this area is built up, the opportunity to connect won't arise for a hundred years. 

 

^I agree 100%.  This was the first item I noticed when i looked at the schematic.  The location of this station makes it completely unfunctional in terms of access to anything within the city that meaningful.  Not does it connect to any other form of mass transit.  I cant think of a good reason to take a train, and de-board at this location.    

Can anyone steelman Bedrock's argument/proposal for placing a downtown CVSR so far south outside of the downtown core? Is it just not worth the added complexity/logistical problems? Do they view it as a much smaller draw than we do on this forum? Is it incompatible with some other aspect of their plan? Etc. I'm just curious, and would be interested in hearing the strongest version of their argument/perspective presented in good faith. 

20 minutes ago, Ethan said:

Can anyone steelman Bedrock's argument/proposal for placing a downtown CVSR so far south outside of the downtown core? Is it just not worth the added complexity/logistical problems? Do they view it as a much smaller draw than we do on this forum? Is it incompatible with some other aspect of their plan? Etc. I'm just curious, and would be interested in hearing the strongest version of their argument/perspective presented in good faith. 

 

Yeah I would imagine it's an underground infrastructure problem.

 

I'm thinking this is/was the current logic: with the proposals for directing service/private traffic under the proposed riverfront buildings, as well as Tower City station upgrades that will need to accommodate the new, narrower RTA trains in a couple years, it might be too much to fit the CVSR into the mix there, whether it's merging with the RTA station or digging a new station entirely. Furthermore, the tracks that would have to be repurposed in order for the CVSR to extend to under Tower City technically do not overlap/connect to the RTA train lines, so even more track would have to be constructed from scratch if that were to happen.

 

When you consider the track upgrades alone that would need to be made, it's probably a good amount. Then, after doing a quick Google Maps and seeing that the site of the proposed CVSR station is about the same walking distance to the Gateway Plaza in between RMFH and Progressive Field as Tower City (tunnel or surface), people who may use the service to attend sporting events (if service is convenient?) will have the same walk distance as using the RTA. This factors in the future Eagle Ave bridge extension to the Cavs facility which will be the future fastest direct walking route.

 

This of course doesn't factor in the other non-sports downtown amenities which the RTA is definitely more convenient for. If you consider the future riverfront and the sports stadiums as the biggest draw though, I imagine the saved costs of not having to do improvements to bring the CVSR under Tower City offset the walking distance to the main sports venues and the future riverfront itself which in theory will be the intended draw anyways. Plus, if the usual e-bike/scooter infrastructure is adequately provided at the proposed CVSR station then that makes travel times even shorter, since the typical visitor now probably wouldn't mind using e-transportation.

It seems to me that investing time, energy and money to bring the rail line 98% of the way to Tower City only to end up in a cheaper but inconvenient location is a waste of a great opportunity. It's like putting rail stops in out of the way locations because it's cheaper. 

 

If you're not going to put something in a position where it can be successful then don't bother. This kind of short sighted thinking is just stupid.

Hold up...

 

Let's wait and see what it is that Bedrock is planning regarding what the stop will look like.  I like everyone else presumed (and hope that one day) it would be in Tower City.  A stop before Tower City may not be so bad though.  I know this is on the opposite side of where the stop would be located, but just to keep an open mind... what if the stop was as significant as the B&O stop? 

 

  

4 minutes ago, Oldmanladyluck said:

Hold up...

 

Let's wait and see what it is that Bedrock is planning regarding what the stop will look like.  I like everyone else presumed (and hope that one day) it would be in Tower City.  A stop before Tower City may not be so bad though.  I know this is on the opposite side of where the stop would be located, but just to keep an open mind... what if the stop was as significant as the B&O stop? 

 

  

 

This old rail station would be the perfect terminus for CVSR, but its at the complete opposite end of the Riverview site.  This plan is an explicit rejection of using this building.  If the plan is built out as proposed, the right of way to this old station will be completely blocked off.  And if you're proposing a structure like this be built at the southeast site in the plan, 1) it doesn't have the history; 2) it doesn't have the connectivity.  

 

 

I still like the Cleveland Thermal building as a location. It's near enough to their proposed location that it seems like a reasonable ask, though I'm sure even that short distance will present plenty of complications. 

 

The thought occurred to me recently that paired with an infill RTA stop around the new Eagle Ave bridge this wouldn't be a bad stop at all. The nearby development, paired with CVSR and the stadiums seems like sufficient justification for an infill stop despite its proximity to Tower City. (Obviously I'd rather have the red line subway detour, but that isn't happening anytime soon). 

 

I might draw out a diagram, but it looks like getting the train into the Thermal building is feasible even with the planned development, but I'm hardly an expert. If it's not possible I'd love to know why. 

Do people think it's really that easy to just build new train tracks right through the middle of the riverfront development to the other side???. Having the CVSR terminate at/near the old terminal building is extremely impractical from a cost perspective and would just serve as another barrier to opening up public walking access to the riverfront - literal train tracks creating a brand new barrier between Tower City and the water's edge through the riverfront site, because that's the only direction it could come from. That is, unless we're going to dig tunnels to bury the CVSR underground haha

 

Also, I'm genuinely curious - sure it would be a nice service to have, but how many people will actually be using the CVSR from this location? If the data turns out that not many people are going to be practically be boarding the CVSR from this location, then who cares if it stops at the southern end of the riverfront? Like I said in my previous post/analysis, the proposed stop location isn't any farther from the main stadium area than Tower City station is. Again, this is a genuine question, not facetious.

Edited July 17, 2024Jul 17 by Geowizical

The ridership estimate from the 2000 CVSR extension study was that the downtown Cleveland extension would add 100,000 new annual riders to CVSR's typical 200,000 annual ridership.

 

That assumed a riverside station stop directly below Tower City. 

7 minutes ago, Geowizical said:

Do people think it's really that easy to just build new train tracks right through the middle of the riverfront development to the other side???. Having the CVSR terminate at/near the old terminal building is extremely impractical from a cost perspective and would just serve as another barrier to opening up public walking access to the riverfront - literal train tracks creating a brand new barrier between Tower City and the water's edge through the riverfront site, because that's the only direction it could come from. That is, unless we're going to dig tunnels to bury the CVSR underground haha

 

Also, I'm genuinely curious - sure it would be a nice service to have, but how many people will actually be using the CVSR from this location? If the data turns out that not many people are going to be practically be boarding the CVSR from this location, then who cares if it stops at the southern end of the riverfront? Like I said in my previous post/analysis, the proposed stop location isn't any farther from the main stadium area than Tower City station is. Again, this is a genuine question, not facetious.

 

In my perfect world, construction of new buildings and/or green space would be above CVSR tracks.  But I also don't think tracks would have to go all the way to the B&O depot to be a big improvement.  Cleveland Thermal would be better than the site in the plan.  Or a small station could be built where the Gateway walkway juts out by the intersection of Huron and Ontario.  Basically, I'm not picky, but anything closer than the proposed site would be an improvement.  

This may seem like a dumb question. But wouldn’t  a CVSR station down there need to include a turntable to turn the engines around? 

41 minutes ago, Ethan said:

I still like the Cleveland Thermal building as a location. It's near enough to their proposed location that it seems like a reasonable ask, though I'm sure even that short distance will present plenty of complications. 

 

The thought occurred to me recently that paired with an infill RTA stop around the new Eagle Ave bridge this wouldn't be a bad stop at all. The nearby development, paired with CVSR and the stadiums seems like sufficient justification for an infill stop despite its proximity to Tower City.

This -- an infill RTA stop that both connects the existing network to CVSR and provides another station option for Gateway (and future soccer stadium?) would seem to be the most reasonable and effective compromise since getting all the way to Tower City is probably prohibitively expensive. I love the architecture of the old B&O, but it's not in an ideal spot.

36 minutes ago, marty15 said:

This may seem like a dumb question. But wouldn’t  a CVSR station down there need to include a turntable to turn the engines around? 

 

I happened to pass a train when driving in the valley this weekend - I noticed they had locomotives on both ends, so maybe not? Not a train expert though...

On 7/12/2024 at 4:04 PM, BoomerangCleRes said:

They touched on the work they’re doing to get the CVSR station and say there’s an ongoing study but they’ve identified the location below as a potential station (apologies if Ken already said this before)

 

Oh that location sucks so bad. Long walks are not good for ridership. If most people are driving to catch the train it defeats the purpose of extending it downtown. 

1 hour ago, marty15 said:

This may seem like a dumb question. But wouldn’t  a CVSR station down there need to include a turntable to turn the engines around? 

No. There is no turnaround at either end of the existing CVSR. 

3 hours ago, KJP said:

The ridership estimate from the 2000 CVSR extension study was that the downtown Cleveland extension would add 100,000 new annual riders to CVSR's typical 200,000 annual ridership.

 

That assumed a riverside station stop directly below Tower City. 

If they actually were to make this part of the riverfront development, I don't see how it doesn't hit that 100k number and easily surpass it. Build an CVNP and Erie Canal Visitors Center and Museum that also acts as a station/ticket area. It would become a must do activity for a lot of visitors. Create some pass that gets you a Rock Hall, CVSR, and RTA ticket. Maybe include options on the pass for things like the zoo, a Guardians game, USS Cod, Science Center, Botanical Gardens, a discount to a play or the orchestra, The Christmas Story House, and other things visitors or even NEO locals would like to do in a day/weekend. 

 

Create some sort of Cleveland/Akron resident or frequent user pass, which could be used by people who live Downtown and nearby places like OHC as a new way to go for a hike or bike ride. Create some group days once or twice a month in the winter that are specifically to get people to the ski resorts. 

 

It also makes my dream of eventually running a Cleveland/Akron/Canton commuter line easier with a better placed stop that is an easier connection to our existing transit.  

Edited July 17, 2024Jul 17 by PlanCleveland
Typo

1 hour ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Oh that location sucks so bad. Long walks are not good for ridership. If most people are driving to catch the train it defeats the purpose of extending it downtown. 

No. There is no turnaround at either end of the existing 

I replied with more info about CVSR here:

 

 

On 7/15/2024 at 11:20 AM, ASP1984 said:

 

Can't imagine they were charging $20-$30 for parking back then. I almost pulled in for a quick stop at TC this year but just laughed when I saw the parking prices and turned back around. 

 

I don't recall it was that bad but it was free or nominal if you bought a certain amount, I think $25 plus.