I agree, I don't see this as a viable transportation option per se. I see it more as a tourist attraction.  The only real connection it will provide is to Wendy and Edgewater Parks

So the SkyLift people are trying to get cables attached to the new Hilton?  Really!?

 

I see RTA is backing this project... Let's see: there's been BRT, the Opportunity Corridor and now SkyLift.  Seems RTA's pumping every form of transportation in this town EXCEPT the one it should be: rail transit -- as in the Rapid, commuter rail or CVSR (extended), where Joe C's RTA suddenly develops laryngitis.

We would still like to see the bridge happen, multiple solutions are good.

 

Not to sound rude, but what is the problem that the skylift is a solution to? These things aren't really fast and efficient people movers. The bridge is a solution, this seems like just a gimmick.

 

 

The problem in Cleveland is not always start up funding.  We need to look at this long-term.  My fear is they build it, then the economy nose dives and it's a shuttered eyesore after 10 years.  .

 

My fear as well. Has a study on it even been done? Seems a little late to include it in a the CC hotel design

 

It's an attraction and would make the city a bigger attraction. In addition it would offer some great views of our city as a more active and unique "observation deck". Cheaper too.  IMO the skylift is much cooler than the hampster tube to the lakefront. I don't see speed as a concern as it is faster than the average bus, and offers a more direct route in this situation.

 

The skylift is a business and can possibly make money. Bridge lights, although cool, don't.  RTA seems to have trouble keeping there stations maintained. Should we shut them down?

So the SkyLift people are trying to get cables attached to the new Hilton?  Really!?

 

I see RTA is backing this project... Let's see: there's been BRT, the Opportunity Corridor and now SkyLift.  Seems RTA's pumping every form of transportation in this town EXCEPT the one it should be: rail transit -- as in the Rapid, commuter rail or CVSR (extended), where Joe C's RTA suddenly develops laryngitis.

 

I'm a huge rail advocate, but the problem with rail is that it requires massive right of ways and has a high cost. Our ridership/density unfortunately doesn't really justify the cost of rail. Additionally our system doesn't really need to be extended as much as it needs to be completely rerouted.

 

It's an attraction and would make the city a bigger attraction. In addition it would offer some great views of our city as a more active and unique "observation deck". Cheaper too.  IMO the skylift is much cooler than the hampster tube to the lakefront. I don't see speed as a concern as it is faster than the average bus, and offers a more direct route in this situation.

 

The skylift is a business and can possibly make money. Bridge lights, although cool, don't.  RTA seems to have trouble keeping there stations maintained. Should we shut them down?

 

So the solution is build a completely different transportation system that we can pay for ALONG along with the ones that aren't maintained?

 

The bridge isn't about being cool. It's about getting people effectively to the Lake front. The speed is fine, but a healthline bus has a seating capacity of 47 people in one vehicle. You are moving a fraction of that amount of people in a gondola. I have a hard time imaging the cost to build this and maintain it is going to be worth its revenue, the efficiency of it as a transportation "solution" (I am bring this up because Jon Stahl is the one who has described it as a solution numerous times), or the draw of this as some sort of attraction. No, I am not saying it won't look nice in videos and on photos for the people in charge of advertising Cleveland, but I am questioning if the draw it will have is worth the cost and cost of maintaining. You say it can possibly make money, but projects like these usually have at least year to two year studies to determine if its worth building, but that hasn't happened. Seems silly to think we should just plan it into the CC hotel.

 

I am skeptical because the city could possibly use that money to do a lot of different and more effective things than a gondola. I have nothing against cool views or original ideas, but this gives me the feeling that I am in Springfield and being sold on the idea of a monorail.

Now that would be ironic, :) wasn't the Huntington building designed for airships?

 

Yep!!!

By the way, the pedestrian bridges over the tracks and shoreway will have outdoor and indoor walkways.

 

I'm not really a fan of that walkway concept. I'd much rather see more ideas floated and just be patient for the best design/long term solution to bridging the tracks and shoreway.

By the way, the pedestrian bridges over the tracks and shoreway will have outdoor and indoor walkways.

 

Yeah, the tube is shaped like a semicircle and split in half. Is there a thread specifically for the bridge?

 

 

Yes, here.....

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,17673.0.html

 

 

 

I'm a huge rail advocate, but the problem with rail is that it requires massive right of ways and has a high cost. Our ridership/density unfortunately doesn't really justify the cost of rail. Additionally our system doesn't really need to be extended as much as it needs to be completely rerouted.

 

That's often the perception. And for new construction that's true. But existing, under-utilized rail rights of way abound in Greater Cleveland. Acquire rail vehicles to use them, not the right of way to handle GCRTA's rail vehicles. And develop the vast underutilized lands along GCRTA's rights of way. If you and others would like to discuss this further, go to: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,2768.0.html

 

Now that would be ironic, :) wasn't the Huntington building designed for airships?

 

Yep!!!

 

There is a "train station" on the roof, used by Sammy's for its Metropolitan Ballroom http://www.sammys.com/metropolitan.shtml. I say "train station" because it is designed like the interiors of train stations of the period (early-1920s). It was designed as a ticketing/waiting area for airships, and Sammy's claims it was used for that purpose, but I don't think it ever was.

 

So GCRTA has the Waterfront Line to the lakefront, its Trolley buses and now it is supporting the Skylift? That lakefront must be real ridership draw. Well, not so far. I'm all for a private individual spending his money the way he wants, but not for getting taxpayers to fund it. We have many more important needs in this city to create greater physical access to jobs, education and services to help our incredibly impoverished residents lift themselves out of hopelessness. I support the lakefront transportation center, especially if we can get the collar-county bus services (Akron Metro, PARTA, SARTA, Laketrans etc) as well as Greyhound and Megabus in there because it will unite all the regional and intercity transportation modes (rail and bus) in one place to enhance mobility through simplified interconnectivity.

I support the lakefront transportation center, especially if we can get the collar-county bus services (Akron Metro, PARTA, SARTA, Laketrans etc) as well as Greyhound and Megabus in there because it will unite all the regional and intercity transportation modes (rail and bus) in one place to enhance mobility through simplified interconnectivity.

 

^ This! That's the kind of infrastructure (and potential spinoff) that can connect the lakefront, and makes the gerbil tube bridge option a short-sighted proposition.

I support the lakefront transportation center, especially if we can get the collar-county bus services (Akron Metro, PARTA, SARTA, Laketrans etc) as well as Greyhound and Megabus in there because it will unite all the regional and intercity transportation modes (rail and bus) in one place to enhance mobility through simplified interconnectivity.

 

^ This! That's the kind of infrastructure (and potential spinoff) that can connect the lakefront, and makes the gerbil tube bridge option a short-sighted proposition.

 

I responded here:

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,17673.msg682265.html#msg682265

 

It's an attraction and would make the city a bigger attraction. In addition it would offer some great views of our city as a more active and unique "observation deck". Cheaper too.  IMO the skylift is much cooler than the hampster tube to the lakefront. I don't see speed as a concern as it is faster than the average bus, and offers a more direct route in this situation.

 

The skylift is a business and can possibly make money. Bridge lights, although cool, don't.  RTA seems to have trouble keeping there stations maintained. Should we shut them down?

 

 

The bridge isn't about being cool. It's about getting people effectively to the Lake front. The speed is fine, but a healthline bus has a seating capacity of 47 people in one vehicle. You are moving a fraction of that amount of people in a gondola.

 

nope. not necessarily anyway. there are two gondola systems used as transit in the usa. one in ny and a new one in portland. the nyc ri tram holds up to 110 people (i have been on it when its that crowded  :-o ) and makes 115 trips a day. so there are big gondolas too.

 

i really wish they would go with a wsm parking lot>flats>casino area starter route, that would be good to have year round and have a high transit use potential. it would also be a non-intrusive way to gauge how such a system would work in cle.

 

 

If this were built, how much would a ride likely cost?

If this happens...then Cincinnati better get an aerial tram from the casino to Mt. Adams. THAT would be awesome and offer some great views.

 

It's an attraction and would make the city a bigger attraction. In addition it would offer some great views of our city as a more active and unique "observation deck". Cheaper too.  IMO the skylift is much cooler than the hampster tube to the lakefront. I don't see speed as a concern as it is faster than the average bus, and offers a more direct route in this situation.

 

The skylift is a business and can possibly make money. Bridge lights, although cool, don't.  RTA seems to have trouble keeping there stations maintained. Should we shut them down?

 

 

The bridge isn't about being cool. It's about getting people effectively to the Lake front. The speed is fine, but a healthline bus has a seating capacity of 47 people in one vehicle. You are moving a fraction of that amount of people in a gondola.

 

nope. not necessarily anyway. there are two gondola systems used as transit in the usa. one in ny and a new one in portland. the nyc ri tram holds up to 110 people (i have been on it when its that crowded  :-o ) and makes 115 trips a day. so there are big gondolas too.

 

i really wish they would go with a wsm parking lot>flats>casino area starter route, that would be good to have year round and have a high transit use potential. it would also be a non-intrusive way to gauge how such a system would work in cle.

Theres a train station a stones throw from the WSM, and a a TC station a short walk from the Casino.  I'm all for better transit options, but have an issue with options that are simply "tourist attractions".  That thing would be empty Sunday through Thursday.

^ yeah i know, there are also busses too, but i was kind of assuming it would be built there hand-in-hand with some spinoff like casino phase two, expanded wsm hours and more development in those areas.

 

If this were built, how much would a ride likely cost?

 

I heard around 5.00 RT

 

It's an attraction and would make the city a bigger attraction. In addition it would offer some great views of our city as a more active and unique "observation deck". Cheaper too.  IMO the skylift is much cooler than the hampster tube to the lakefront. I don't see speed as a concern as it is faster than the average bus, and offers a more direct route in this situation.

 

The skylift is a business and can possibly make money. Bridge lights, although cool, don't.  RTA seems to have trouble keeping there stations maintained. Should we shut them down?

 

 

The bridge isn't about being cool. It's about getting people effectively to the Lake front. The speed is fine, but a healthline bus has a seating capacity of 47 people in one vehicle. You are moving a fraction of that amount of people in a gondola.

 

nope. not necessarily anyway. there are two gondola systems used as transit in the usa. one in ny and a new one in portland. the nyc ri tram holds up to 110 people (i have been on it when its that crowded  :-o ) and makes 115 trips a day. so there are big gondolas too.

 

i really wish they would go with a wsm parking lot>flats>casino area starter route, that would be good to have year round and have a high transit use potential. it would also be a non-intrusive way to gauge how such a system would work in cle.

 

 

 

Again those are completely different systems than is being proposed here.  Those are Aerial Tramways; Two trams, holding between 50-100 per tram, are connected to a fixed cable, one on either side, and both run at the same time in opposite directions between two fixed end points.  A gondola system, which is being proposed, is a loop with multiple cars, typically holding between 6-10 people each, on it's route, which can have multiple stops.  The other large difference is that the tram will come to a complete stop to unload, whereas a gondola system will disconnect from the main travel cable and slow down, but not stop, while unloading.  This allows the cars to travel around 25mph, but slow to something more conducive to loading/unloading while in each station.

 

The only example that I am aware of in the USA, of this type of system, is in Telluride, CO.  While this is in connection with the ski resort it is not run solely for the ski resort.  It does continue to run once the mountain has closed and is the main form of transport from the historic town of Telluride to the manufactured village  on the mountain.

 

More info on the Telluride Gondola

Its also in Whistler as far as connecting whistler village to blackcomb village before continuing on up the mountain.  Northstar in Tahoe has a gondola from their parking lot to their lodge as well before heading up the mountain. I think Canyons in Utah does the same and i can think of several others in Canada that do as well.

They also do the same in Queenstown NZ.

 

 

I'm surprised there is so much support for this in this thread. It seems like another expensive tourism gimmick to me. I guess if the funding is private it's okay, but it doesn't seem very practical to me. Just my opinion.

I'm surprised there is so much support for this in this thread. It seems like another expensive tourism gimmick to me. I guess if the funding is private it's okay, but it doesn't seem very practical to me. Just my opinion.

 

Nor do I. I think this is silly. Maybe if they proposed one over the river to link Flats East Bank with the West Bank near Main Avenue, then I might actually find some transportation value in it. A downtown isn't an amusement park. Its a neighborhood where people live, work, shop, study, play and travel from each of those places. I see too much "play" being introduced here for people who do not live or work here, now and in the future. Those are the people who sustain a neighborhood. The visitors are merely the icing on the cake. If you make your city attractive enough for the residents, workers and students, the visitors will follow. And if I lived downtown, I'd want an easy, year-round way to get across the river without being forced to drive. I will want to take a bicycle. I want it as a pedestrian amenity. I want it as a transit feeder/distributor to/from the Waterfront Line (access RTA passes on Skylift!). And yes, I want it to serve visitors from the hotels at Tower City and Flats East Bank so that BOTH sides of the Flats will thrive again but as a truly mixed-use district of waterfront residential, workplaces, shops, restaurants and a few touristy places. Is that too much to ask?

^ why not have both?

 

If someone wants to make a skylift from downtown to the lakefront that's fine.

 

If you want your connection, make the effort the skylift people did and get your idea out there and start raising funds/attention for it.

If you want your connection, make the effort the skylift people did and get your idea out there and start raising funds/attention for it.

 

Aren't I allowed to critique things that I don't like, just as you do of things you don't like (ie: Burnham's mall design)? If not, why not?

 

BTW, the Skylift people read this thread and others at UrbanOhio. Daniel Burnham does not. Will I influence the folks at Skylift? Maybe. If not, oh well. Life goes on. I just have an informed opinion. And no one is forcing you to read what I write.

If this happens...then Cincinnati better get an aerial tram from the casino to Mt. Adams. THAT would be awesome and offer some great views.

 

everything sounds awesome until someone needs to pay for it. 

 

If this happens...then Cincinnati better get an aerial tram from the casino to Mt. Adams. THAT would be awesome and offer some great views.

 

everything sounds awesome until someone needs to pay for it. 

 

 

Right and since the aerial tram guys of Cleveland monitor this thread, I'd like to hear their proposals and budgets for ongoing maintenance and operation.  Tell us how this won't be built, then shut down in 10 years due to lack of operating funds.

 

It's an attraction and would make the city a bigger attraction. In addition it would offer some great views of our city as a more active and unique "observation deck". Cheaper too.  IMO the skylift is much cooler than the hampster tube to the lakefront. I don't see speed as a concern as it is faster than the average bus, and offers a more direct route in this situation.

 

The skylift is a business and can possibly make money. Bridge lights, although cool, don't.  RTA seems to have trouble keeping there stations maintained. Should we shut them down?

 

 

The bridge isn't about being cool. It's about getting people effectively to the Lake front. The speed is fine, but a healthline bus has a seating capacity of 47 people in one vehicle. You are moving a fraction of that amount of people in a gondola.

 

nope. not necessarily anyway. there are two gondola systems used as transit in the usa. one in ny and a new one in portland. the nyc ri tram holds up to 110 people (i have been on it when its that crowded  :-o ) and makes 115 trips a day. so there are big gondolas too.

 

i really wish they would go with a wsm parking lot>flats>casino area starter route, that would be good to have year round and have a high transit use potential. it would also be a non-intrusive way to gauge how such a system would work in cle.

 

 

 

Again those are completely different systems than is being proposed here.  Those are Aerial Tramways; Two trams, holding between 50-100 per tram, are connected to a fixed cable, one on either side, and both run at the same time in opposite directions between two fixed end points.  A gondola system, which is being proposed, is a loop with multiple cars, typically holding between 6-10 people each, on it's route, which can have multiple stops.  The other large difference is that the tram will come to a complete stop to unload, whereas a gondola system will disconnect from the main travel cable and slow down, but not stop, while unloading.  This allows the cars to travel around 25mph, but slow to something more conducive to loading/unloading while in each station.

 

The only example that I am aware of in the USA, of this type of system, is in Telluride, CO.  While this is in connection with the ski resort it is not run solely for the ski resort.  It does continue to run once the mountain has closed and is the main form of transport from the historic town of Telluride to the manufactured village  on the mountain.

 

More info on the Telluride Gondola

 

yep or like at bigger amusement parks. i'm just saying it is possible to build this skylift to transport a lot of people and be used as a form of transit. gondola system or aerial tram, its all theoretical at this stage, so i wouldnt get hung up on what they propose. this is the brainsorming stage anyway, so lets look at what could be done and has been done. i think we need to put up pics/links/examples of all these systems that are already in place around the world. maybe one would fit fine in cle, that would bring costs down. i can when i get time, unless someone else wants to?

 

 

 

 

This website has some information about various systems throughout the world.  It is very limited as regards to useful information, but is a good starting point.

 

If you want your connection, make the effort the skylift people did and get your idea out there and start raising funds/attention for it.

 

The problem is NEW always attracts attention, the prospect of the 100 -120 million needed to replace the rail fleet so that we will still have Rail transit in Cleveland in 20 years never will attract more attention than NEW Vaporware at this point.

 

Realistically I expect that it would take $220-300 million to buy new trains, upgrade the Redline to lower maintenance costs, by replacing the now 58 year old outdated and expensive Cantenary system, that become more and more fragile as it ages (line breaks, service interruptions), Plus Money needed to modify Redline stations to Use a Low floor LRT vehicle, and potentially money to modernize the 90 year old maze of tracks underneath Tower City,and potential replace the expensive to maintain Hi and Low Platform Station with an single low platform station. 

 

The fact is the cost to run our rail system is higher than it has to be, If RTA doesn't begin to deal with the legacy costs of the sytem it will eat RTA's budget alive.

There was an aerial tram built over the Thames for the 2012 Olympics, which is widely seen as a boondoggle now. Ridiculously low ridership, high subsidies, etc. Just food for thought. Granted, it's not exactly through Central London.

Granted, it's not exactly through Central London.

Exactly. This would be worse in terms of ridership.

I think these systems tend to work well in very specific locations.  Mountainous terrain being the obvious one, but I would also think it may make sense where land acquisition costs would be high.  Besides the stations there is not much of a footprint for each tower.  Thus why the London gondola made sense, just wasn't well executed.  Like any form of transit you need to connect things, London's gondola doesn't achieve this mark.

 

So, Cleveland doesn't really meet either of those criteria. 

Imagine these tower dotting the landscape from Ohio city to Edgewater park

 

London's skylift......

 

 

 

 

^Its that last pick that worries me most.  Not exactly a hoping place for a city of 8 million.

 

^^Even connecting Egdewater-> Ohio City/West Bank -> East Bank -> Rock Hall those are for the most part very limited use destinations.  The strongest link of any, I would think would be the West Bank -> East Bank connection.  That would seem to be the hardest crossing for a pedestrian to make.  Another thing to consider is that a gondola does not change directions in the air, only at a station (or complex mid route apparatus) once they have detached from the main transport cable.  So any stations would need to be set up on a line of sight basis. 

 

This feels like a solution looking for a problem. 

Granted, it's not exactly through Central London.

Exactly. This would be worse in terms of ridership.

 

I meant the London one is not through Central London. It's off to the east, where there is relatively little (aside from the O2 Arena). At least the proposed one in Cleveland is in Downtown. But I still think it's a bad idea. It would be hard to make it very functional for transportation. It's fundamentally a tourism novelty. Not worth subsidizing.

 

People propose these for Cincinnati, as a sort of modern take on the old inclines (in particular up to Mt. Adams). I think the idea is more suitable in that case (it actually could provide a faster & more direct route than other modes could), but many informed people are still skeptical that the math would work.

I personally don't see the edgewater aspect of this project as very crucial. However, i'm looking at it like most people from the viewpoint of that being the starting point. For people that live downtown it could be a cherished getaway in the ease of being transported to the beach. People on here are forever and a day saying there is not a good way to access to the lake. Well to me this helps give people who live and work downtown access in spades.

 

Overall, i'm definitely supportive of this. This is good for not just crossing the river but climbing the hillsides of Cleveland up and down the sides of the flats.  Connect it to where the people are partying at any particular time and you have a great transportation system.

I now think the bridge idea to the lake is ridiculous. If you really take a look in person, that would be one hell of a walk, on an isolated bridge. Not a good idea IMO. Seeing the gap in person show how far it truely is.

I now think the bridge idea to the lake is ridiculous. If you really take a look in person, that would be one hell of a walk, on an isolated bridge. Not a good idea IMO. Seeing the gap in person show how far it truely is.

 

Which bridge idea? The Lakefront Multimodal Transportation Center? If so, each pedestrian bridge would be about 300 feet long. Transportation center will not built without them.

Imagine these tower dotting the landscape from Ohio city to Edgewater park

 

 

^ Funny you don't like that, but you probably love this:

 

Imagine these tower dotting the landscape from Ohio city to Edgewater park

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Nizhny_Novgorod_-_Bor_aerial_tramway.jpg

 

^ Funny you don't like that, but you probably love this:

 

 

Yep, Toronto's streetcars carry as many riders as the our entire transit system.  They quote 1 million riders per year, when there are already 20 bus and rail line in Cleveland caring more than a Million riders annually.

 

Are our standards so low that we would spend up to 100 million dollars per kilometer (more expensive than rail) to build this thing, that deliver less economic development opportunities than if the money were spent on something else.

 

BTW the London sky lift, cost 60 million pounds or 96.6 million dollars for a one kilometer 2 station system.

 

Downtown Cleveland Has Enough Gimmicky Tourist Attractions

 

4 November 2013  No Comment

 

We’re getting ready to spend $16 million on a giant chandelier in Cleveland.

One of my friends cited this as her breaking point, the reason she is moving out of Cleveland. She and her husband are planning to move to Minneapolis. At least they’re trying to do things with transit there and improve quality of life, she said.

 

 

http://rustwire.com/2013/11/04/downtown-cleveland-has-enough-gimmicky-tourist-attractions/

Downtown Cleveland Has Enough Gimmicky Tourist Attractions

 

4 November 2013  No Comment

 

We’re getting ready to spend $16 million on a giant chandelier in Cleveland.

One of my friends cited this as her breaking point, the reason she is moving out of Cleveland. She and her husband are planning to move to Minneapolis. At least they’re trying to do things with transit there and improve quality of life, she said.

 

 

http://rustwire.com/2013/11/04/downtown-cleveland-has-enough-gimmicky-tourist-attractions/

 

Amen! 

 

Cleveland will never be a tourist destination of any magnitude.  We need jobs and livable neighborhoods. 

Downtown Cleveland Has Enough Gimmicky Tourist Attractions

 

4 November 2013  No Comment

 

We’re getting ready to spend $16 million on a giant chandelier in Cleveland.

One of my friends cited this as her breaking point, the reason she is moving out of Cleveland. She and her husband are planning to move to Minneapolis. At least they’re trying to do things with transit there and improve quality of life, she said.

 

 

http://rustwire.com/2013/11/04/downtown-cleveland-has-enough-gimmicky-tourist-attractions/

 

Angie Schmitt's trying to assume the Roldo Bartimole role in Cleveland journalism, but got to the "Damn kids!  Get off my lawn!" point much quicker."

Downtown Cleveland Has Enough Gimmicky Tourist Attractions

 

4 November 2013  No Comment

 

We’re getting ready to spend $16 million on a giant chandelier in Cleveland.

One of my friends cited this as her breaking point, the reason she is moving out of Cleveland. She and her husband are planning to move to Minneapolis. At least they’re trying to do things with transit there and improve quality of life, she said.

 

 

http://rustwire.com/2013/11/04/downtown-cleveland-has-enough-gimmicky-tourist-attractions/

 

Amen! 

 

Cleveland will never be a tourist destination of any magnitude.  We need jobs and livable neighborhoods. 

 

Amen. Amen to what? That ridiculous article is sure getting run among all  the haters. Yeah Minneapolis is a great example as they're about to spend over 1 Billion dollars for a new stadium, because as we all know there is no poverty in Minneapolis. Oh and I hope she enjoys spending time at the very 'urban friendly Mall of America. ..As Ozzie Guillen would say puh-leeze.

^Its that last pick that worries me most.  Not exactly a hoping place for a city of 8 million.

 

Probably pictures taken when the area was closed off, with the models mainly for scale.

 

Photographers differ.  Some prefer crowds, to show activity.  Others (like me) prefer few to no people, because they tend to distract the viewer (and perhaps the photographer).

Cleveland will never be a tourist destination of any magnitude.  We need jobs and livable neighborhoods. 

 

I would go that far.  In point of fact, Cleveland already is a fairly strong regional tourist attraction.  The Rock Hall and casino brings significant Midwest tourist dollars here.  And other quieter aspects, like our expanded (magnificent Art Museum) and Ohio City/WSM are drawing some folks as well.  When the Flats emerged in its heyday in the 90s, (coupled with the Rock Hall, which was new) tourist magazines nationally were touting Cleveland as the place to be…

… Until the 1960s, Toronto was viewed as a sleepy, conservative backwater nobody had any real interest in visiting.  Baltimore was that way until the 80s… What a difference careful and aggressive urban planning and execution has made in those 2 places.  It can happen here as well, and to a considerable extent, it is already happening.  To experience the up & coming Cleveland of today compared to where we were 10, even 5 years ago, is breathtaking.  Given all the crap that was going against us, both large (major corps leaving, being ground zero for the national 2008 foreclosure mess) and small (LeBron leaving), it would have been very easy… even logical, for this town to have rolled over and died.  That we are where we are makes Cleveland my hero!...

 

… That said, we still have this old Cleveland/inferiority complex attitude that still motivates some to believe that our only hope is through gimmicky stuff like that crassly huge Skylift project (one line linking Flats East Bank to, say, Whiskey Island… OK) and that goofy chandelier over Playhouse Square – which is a visual travesty, I don’t care who is paying for us – still tends to hold us back as a city.

 

Angie Schmitt's trying to assume the Roldo Bartimole role in Cleveland journalism, but got to the "Damn kids!  Get off my lawn!" point much quicker."

 

I can't disagree with you here, E Roc.  Even though I share the same lefty politics with Angie and am in simpatico with her on a number of local projects (ie. the developments noted in her Rustwire piece along with her hatred of the Opportunity Corridor), I just can’t wrap my metaphorical arms around her.  She’s one of those Lefties who would rather burn down the city to save it and, to that end, she comes off as hating Cleveland rather than caring for it.  That she would (foolishly) lead off her otherwise reasonable blog post about Skylift with a ridiculous story about some wrongheaded friend of hers who packs up and leaves town for Minneapolis because of the Playhouse Sq. chandelier, coupled with Schmidt’s constant, absurd rants that Cleveland  is just another Detroit, tend to prove my point.    To Schmidt there is very little, if anything, that Cleveland is doing right.  And the idea that developing a downtown, and other hip urban neighborhoods that are attractive to suburbanites, visitors and even tourist, is something to be scorned not praised, is ridiculous…  Fortunately, as you can see in the Comments section to her post, many readers seriously take her to task for her side comments.

 

… and yes, it is this Rebel Without a Cause mentality of  Roldo Bartimole that Schmidt exhibits, that’s a major turnoff to me….

 

We should move, and continue the conversation about rust wire and it's authors to the local media thread.

I think sometimes we all get so caught up in all of this that we don't think about (or don't care about) what REGULAR people think. And that's ok, you don't have to. But I think about that. The average regular person has never heard of Angie and doesn't read (and couldn't give a damn less about) Rustwire. I am of the belief that you can never have too many "gimmicky tourist attractions" because regular people LIKE them. The idea that Cleveland can never be a tourist attraction is absurd, defeatist, and most importantly, factually inaccurate considering that the Rock Hall, Playhouse Square, Horseshoe Casino (yes, I've met people who came from elsewhere to go to the Horseshoe), the Q and all of the museums are ALREADY tourist attractions. Quick story, last year I was at Winterfest and I'm with my godson by the food trucks and this couple walks up to me and asks me if B&Ms were the best in town. We chatted for a bit and then they said they weren't from here. I asked them where were they from and they said Buffalo. They didn't come up here to see family or friends. They knew no one here. They came up here specifically for Winterfest. Not to mention the tourists I ran into from Chicago or the tourists I've ran into on multiple occasions from Metro Detroit, so the idea that we can't and never will be a tourist attraction is B.S. As a tourist destination, Cleveland is not New York. But Cleveland's competitive edge is that at its best, Cleveland Can BE New York for others in the region. At our best, we're New York for people who can't afford to (or don't want to) go to New York.

 

Now, specifically on the skylift, I support it. It's unique. It's out of the box thinking (which we DESPERATELY need here) and it absolutely will be a tourist attraction. What happens when the shine wears off is a legitimate concern, but it's not a boondoggle. And let's not present this false narrative of "instead of doing this, we REALLY should be doing this". Lets for one second act like this city is capable of walking and chewing gum at the same damn time and do both. Yes you must make your neighborhood (in this case, downtown) appealing for the people that live and work there. But guess what? Downtown IS an amusement park for many people and you want and NEED that too. Without it, you're Detroit. So whether it's a big ass chandelier outside of Playhouse Square or Dan Gilbert's plans to make a Cleveland's Times Square or the Cowboys Stadium-ifcation of FirstEnergy Stadium or a Skylift, I'm for it. I desperately want this city to shake off the torn sackcloth and linen of Midwestern boredom and rediscover gaudy opulence. We could use some more "look at me"-isms here.

Thank You for this post. For the short time I have been on this forum it gave me some hope. It seems like everyone has their agenda but can't see the forest through the trees. I am a possible newbie to the area and so far don't see where Cleveland has too many gimmicky things/attractions at all? In fact perhaps I am missing something so please enlighten me, and I'm not trying to be a pest, but can someone point out what is a gimmicky attraction/thing in Cleveland? I mean are people actually throwing things in like the Rock Hall as a gimmick? To me the area seems rather genuine versus gimmicky and think things like the chandelier in Play House Square will be a huge benefit for Cleveland.