April 2, 200817 yr Once the Arctic Ocean melts and the northern passage opens up, Lake Erie will be as far from China as Norfolk, Virginia. Globalization will turn China into a huge consumer market, and Midwestern firms will be well positioned to get products to that market. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That will be great :sarcasm:. I like the idea of ''short sea shipping''. I would like to keep non US or Canadian flagged vessels downstream of Niagara Falls so that they don't bring more alien species in with their ballast water.
April 9, 200817 yr Stay tuned for some exciting news coming about the port and what they've got in store for Whiskey Island. That's all I can really say right now.
April 9, 200817 yr Man I hope this is good news, and that you're not being sarcastic 8-) Everyone keeps asking me why the road to WI/Wendy Park is closed.
April 9, 200817 yr Everyone keeps asking me why the road to WI/Wendy Park is closed. It's being rebuilt. I recall seeing a press release about it, but a Google search revealed nothing. As for the county plan, some insights might be gained here..... http://www.gcbl.org/planning/lakefront/whiskey-island/county-plan-for-whiskey-island "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
April 9, 200817 yr No sarcasm present in my last post; the rebuilding of the road (didn't know about that) must be directly related to what I was told last night. This Whiskey Island business is in addition to some more news coming about the port's foray into intermodal business and reviving that industrial corridor adjacent to their future home. Really exciting stuff; the port is really trying to expedite this plan. Stay tuned.
April 9, 200817 yr That Green City/Blue Lake site is VAST. Thanks for posting!!! Looking forward to some more positive news.
April 9, 200817 yr looks like Wasserman's exorbitantly high salary is worth it after all! The federal government would pay to build the land, which Wasserman estimates would be worth a quarter of a billion dollars. How much will Ohio and local taxpayers have to spend to move the port, though?
April 9, 200817 yr No sarcasm present in my last post; the rebuilding of the road (didn't know about that) must be directly related to what I was told last night. This Whiskey Island business is in addition to some more news coming about the port's foray into intermodal business and reviving that industrial corridor adjacent to their future home. Really exciting stuff; the port is really trying to expedite this plan. Stay tuned. there was supposed to be an announcement of a seasonal restaurant at the coast guard station. a few parties have apparently gotten close to some concept that might work at that location.
May 16, 200817 yr (This is, I think, an interesting article from Scene. As cynical as its tone is, it asks some interesting questions and sheds differing perspectives into the port's planned relocation.) Moving the port will cost $600 million, take 20 years, and leave broken promises in its wake By Bradley Campbell Published: May 14, 2008 It was, like the Euclid Corridor before and the Medical Mart after, the Plan to Save Cleveland: In 2004, the city adopted a grandiose strategy to finally make use of the valuable yet murky shoreline that lies to the north. It was the culmination of a 32-month process, the city boasted, that brought 5,000 people to more than 200 public meetings. ... http://www.clevescene.com/cleveland/moving-the-port-will-cost-600-million-take-20-years-and-leave-broken-promises-in-its-wake/Content?oid=1505732
May 17, 200817 yr He asks some good questions, but loses sight of the goals of the port relocation.... + We have an amazing resource, Lake Erie, which we haven't fully capitalized upon. + In a future of high energy costs, we need a bigger and more modern port. + A downtown lakefront is a lousy place to have a port. + The downtown lakefront needs to be redeveloped with uses that allows the public to enjoy it, and allows the city increase its taxbase. And yes, some people with connections are going to get rich(er) from the port's relocation. Nothing happens in this country unless someone gets enriched by it. Shocking. Edit: I get tired of reading comments by others that we need a silver bullet to restore the city to its former glory. There's no such singular bullet -- there's lot of little ones though. If I were to suggest that this city could receive: + A single employer hiring 28,000 people and give the city an international reputation for health care, would we consider that a silver bullet? Probably. We have one. It's called the Cleveland Clinic. + 80 percent of the bio-technology and health care venture capital in Ohio, enough to put a close second behind Minneapolis as a Midwest leader, would we consider that a silver bullet? Probably. So why are we still looking for that so-called elusive silver bullet? + new offices and light manufacturing facilities from "green collar" (renewable energy) companies incubated locally and drawn in from other places around the world, might we call that a silver bullet? I would think so. So why aren't we, as thousands of new green-collar jobs emerge in Northeast Ohio? + thousands of new and relocated computer and software jobs crowded into the upper floors of buildings along Euclid Avenue and other downtown buildings, I'd bet we might consider that a silver bullet? Who knows, but my guess is that some in this city are so driven by hindsight that they won't be happy unless the Carnegie Steel Co., White Motor Co., Worsted Mills, Warner Swayse and Schmidt Beer start up again and build massive new plants employing tens of thousands of workers. Wake up Clevelanders. There are lots little silver bullets popping up all over the place. Support and encourage them to become the Fortune 500 companies of tomorrow. After all, Standard Oil, Eaton and Republic Steel were once mom-and-pop operations too! "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
May 19, 200817 yr Who knows, but my guess is that some in this city are so driven by hindsight that they won't be happy unless the Carnegie Steel Co., White Motor Co., Worsted Mills, Warner Swayse and Schmidt Beer start up again and build massive new plants employing tens of thousands of workers. I'd say you summed up the 'average' clevelander about perfectly.
May 19, 200817 yr "And yes, some people with connections are going to get rich(er) from the port's relocation. Nothing happens in this country unless someone gets enriched by it. Shocking." But, but, but - if we accept that, Roldo will have nothing to write about!?!?!? And what will Kucinich grandstand about?!? :-o clevelandskyscrapers.com Cleveland Skyscrapers on Instagram
June 5, 200817 yr COMMUNITY INFORMATION MEETING SCHEDULED TO PRESENT CLEVELAND PORT RELOCATION PLAN CLEVELAND, O. – The Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Buffalo District and the City of Cleveland invite the public to an informational community meeting to learn about the future plans for the Port Authority’s relocation of commercial shipping docks from their downtown location to the development of a new, 200-acre land area on Cleveland’s lakefront near East 55th Street. The Port Authority presentation will highlight the future potential of maritime commerce in the Great Lakes and will present the proposed conceptual layout for maritime docks with highway and rail access potential. The presentation will also highlight the proposed International Trade District adjacent to the new site. The Army Corps will discuss the consideration of the site within their Dredged Material Management Plan (DMMP) as a new facility to hold dredged material which is necessary to maintain the Federal Shipping Channel in Cleveland Harbor. The Port Relocation Plan was originally presented to the public on February 19, 2008 at a meeting held at St. Philip Neri Community Center. The site was approved by the City of Cleveland Planning Commission on March 7, 2008. The community meeting is free and open to the public: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Our Lady of Mount Carmel (School Gym) 6928 Detroit Avenue Cleveland, O. 44102 ### "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 11, 200817 yr Another bump from ONN. http://www.10tv.com/live/content/onnnews/stories/2008/06/10/portofcleveland.html?sid=102 Cleveland Port Relocation Project Proposed Tuesday, June 10, 2008 7:52 AM CLEVELAND, Ohio — Community leaders on Ohio's North Coast continue public talks about relocating the Port of Cleveland. The area port authority is working with the Army Corps of Engineers to determine if the proposed new site will work. A port relocation could begin to make visions of a thriving Cleveland lakefront reality, ONN's Brian McIntyre reported. ...
June 11, 200817 yr The Cleveland Port relocation could cost about $160 million, but federal funds will cover about 75 percent of the cost. Construction would start in 2012. Ah, both of those statements are Not Quite Right. The Feds will cover 75% of the cost of building the CDF for the Cuyahoga River's dredge wastes, and the Port of Cleveland and City of Cleveland (as local sponsors of the CDF project) would have to cover the remaining 25%. Once the CDF is constructed (with the 75% Federal Match), the Port of Cleveland is on its own for the rest of the move, including but not limited to construction of new terminals, relocation of cranes, construction of connecting infrastructure such as rail and road access, and any other capital expenses. The Feds will not pay for any non-CDF improvements, unless the Port of Cleveland goes back to Congress, hat in hand. And, that 2012 date is just for the construction of the CDF, which is intended to contain 20 years of dredge spoils. If the Port were wait until the entire CDF was filled, 2032 would merely signal the end of the Corps of Engineer's work; the Port would still have to wait several years for the dredge spoils in the CDF to dry and settle. If the CDF was constructed in phases using separate cells, the Port could conceivably move onto the CDF in phases of its own. However, given that constructing the CDF using separate cells would be more expensive than constructing it all at once, the Port would have to cover any additional expenses to make the CDF development-ready.
June 11, 200817 yr Yeesh, so what you're saying with that timeline, is that nobody on this forum will be alive to see anything really happen from all of this. :wtf:
June 11, 200817 yr I went and saw Wasserman speak about a week or two ago.... It wasn't all that doom and gloom. And yes they have discussed moving phases of port operations over time. So that as they move one part of the facilities to the new area that area can be openend to the city for new development. That being said, they are a solid 10 years away from anything being open to develop, and that's if things go smoothly.
June 25, 200816 yr Cleveland port critic silenced from commenting at meetings Posted by Tom Breckenridge June 25, 2008 16:54PM Categories: Economic development, Impact Cleveland's port leaders have taken the rare step of muffling the public-meeting complaints of a bellicose critic. http://blog.cleveland.com/business/2008/06/cleveland_port_critic_silenced.html
June 25, 200816 yr I've seen this guy at public meetings. He's about 6'6", 350 lbs, and he yells at the panelists, jabbing his finger and doing his best to look physically threatening. He is a bully, plain and simple. His rants don't even make sense.
June 25, 200816 yr I've seen this guy at public meetings. He's about 6'6", 350 lbs, and he yells at the panelists, jabbing his finger and doing his best to look physically threatening. He is a bully, plain and simple. His rants don't even make sense. Question though. I don't agree with someone disrupting the meeting, but is there any truth in what he says? I'm a believer of, where there smoke....there's fire.
June 25, 200816 yr Maybe, maybe not. I've never seen hard evidence provided, though it should be collected because of MBE/FBE contracting requirements in the city. My experience in the field leads me to believe that it doesn't matter if it is true to those pushing the issue. And frankly it doesn't matter to me either. This is about extorting contracts, not earning them. Sorry to say, and I know you won't take kindly to it.
June 26, 200816 yr why wouldn't I take kindly. I don't know enough about the situation to give an truly informed opinion. Is he doing this because he truly feels minorities are not be represented or just full of hot air? It all just seems odd.
June 27, 200816 yr What is the port board's track record in representing people of color? I see four visible minorities (out of 9) on there board right now.
June 27, 200816 yr I mean, if this guy is genuinely disrupting the meetings and is generally inhibiting the order of business, then they have the right to put such people out, no? If he truly has a valid grievance .. as in, actual events that occured that he has a problem with, then there are channels through which to voice such grievances, I should think. Obviously, I don't know a lot about the political process in this case, but I'm just really curious to know the details here and whether or not this is just another idiot using racism as a scapegoat for his asshole-ness. I'm not saying that's the case. Let me be clear. I'm just curious to know.
July 23, 200816 yr Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority to take focus off retail in regional development Wednesday, July 23, 2008 Tom Breckenridge Plain Dealer Reporter One of the region's most powerful business-development bodies will de-emphasize retail projects outside Cleveland and look for investments with regional effect. To reach this Plain Dealer reporter: [email protected], 216-999-4695 http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1216801853121550.xml&coll=2
August 5, 200816 yr http://blog.cleveland.com/business/2008/08/meet_the_new_port.html I like this plan! nice drawing
August 5, 200816 yr I like it too. Proposed new Cleveland port takes on a different look Posted by Peter Krouse August 05, 2008 16:02PM Meet the new port -- not the same as the old port. A conceptual draft for a proposed new Port of Cleveland, to be located at East 55th Street, was revealed today. Gone are the finger docks that characterize the current port at the mouth of the Cuyahoga River. ... http://blog.cleveland.com/business/2008/08/meet_the_new_port.html
August 6, 200816 yr No rail access? "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
August 6, 200816 yr Is the new port in the approximate area of the Nicholson Apartments? And if it is will they be torn down?
August 6, 200816 yr Not sure where the Nicholson Apartments are -- the only apartments that I'm aware in close proximity to this site is Quay 55. That being said -- Yikes -- I can see why the Quay 55 owners were so unhappy with the Port's relocation to this area.
August 6, 200816 yr I think it would be interesting to live near a working waterfront, but that's me.
August 6, 200816 yr I'm actually surprised that residents chose to live at Quay 55. It is so removed from anything else. The nice lake views are pretty much it. Any reports on where the marina would move to or would it be no more? And good point on no rail access shown. https://www.instagram.com/cle_and_beyond/https://www.instagram.com/jbkaufer/
August 6, 200816 yr Sorry I did not completely get my point across. The Nicholson terminals apartments are QUAY 55. That was the name of that hulking warehouse before it turned into an apartment complex.
August 6, 200816 yr I'm actually surprised that residents chose to live at Quay 55. It is so removed from anything else. The nice lake views are pretty much it. Any reports on where the marina would move to or would it be no more? And good point on no rail access shown. I'm with you on that one. I don't even think that the views are that great. The westside's shoreline views are awesome, but the east side's are nothing special.
August 6, 200816 yr People are worried about the impact on Dyke 14. Looking at the new drawing, it looks that it will be unaffected. However, if the Port must re-establish the lost State Parkland and the marina, cramming both into E. 72nd likely will have an adverse effect on the Dyke. If you've never been there, it is a very cool place, provides habitat for hundreds of bird species, great potential for natural hiking trails, learning centers, and lake access. Here's a letter a friend sent to me: The Honorable Ted Strickland, Governor of Ohio Governor's Office Riffe Center , 30th Floor 77 South High Street Columbus , OH 43215-6108 Dear Governor Strickland, I urge you to intervene immediately to keep the East 55th Street Marina and surrounding and neighboring parkland as an important part of the Cleveland Lakefront State Park (CLSP). The East 55th Street Marina , fishing piers from East 55th St. to East 72nd St. , concessions, picnic areas, parking lots, and other areas of the Lakefront State Park System are being targeted for elimination by the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority. The Port has claimed these State Park lands as their site for a 200-acre Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) and future industrial site for port activities, including bulk storage. As you know, for more than 30 years the Cleveland Lakefront State Park from East 55th St. to East 72nd St. , including the Marina , has served the recreational needs of Ohio citizens and visitors of all ages. This centrally located State Park provides beautiful views of Lake Erie , especially from its 10-foot wide walkway that extends 1,200 feet along the east and north sides of the park. The Park also provides fishing access, picnic areas, rest rooms, a concession and restaurant building, 268 boat slips and 20 transient docks, and ample parking. To lose this recreational Lakefront jewel to an industrial use is neither reasonable nor appropriate. Although the Port Authority has suggested that it will replace the public amenities of the East 55th Marina State Park elsewhere, its promises are fraught with unanswered challenges. But even if a new marina is built elsewhere along Cleveland ’s lakefront, it cannot replace what would be lost forever. I ask that you act immediately and firmly to halt the Port Authority’s proposal for the following reasons: 1) The Port’s proposal would destroy a central and spacious expanse of public access to and public view of Lake Erie . This proposal would be a reversal of the plans of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, as well as plans by the City of Cleveland, as well as publicly stated promises made to the citizens of Cleveland's neighborhoods and the entire region, to expand CLSP at East 55th St. and the Marina and to open up more of Cleveland’s lakefront to public access. 2) The Port’s proposal violates the City’s own Lakefront plan, which was created just a few years ago and approved by the City’s Planning Commission after three years of input and approval from thousands of citizens, the State of Ohio , and Cuyahoga County . The Lakefront Plan (aka Waterfront District Plan) has as one of its goals the preservation and expansion of the State Marina and Park from East 55th St. to East 72nd St . 3) The Port’s proposal contradicts Army Corps’ extensive public planning process conducted over several years that studied eight sites and then identified, with the Port’s and City’s full involvement, three viable sites for locating Cleveland’s next Confined Disposal Facility (CDF). The Port delayed and then derailed the Corps’ process, rejecting the three publicly reviewed CDF sites and privately arranging with the Army Corps and the City of Cleveland to approve a fourth, never before mentioned, CDF site at the E. 55th St. State Park and Marina . The Port then conducted two public meetings with little notice and with virtually no back-up to support the sudden change of CDF locations. The Port’s claim to the new CDF site is based on a speculative plan for a container shipping port facility, which the Port’s own study found to be of questionable viability. To date the Port plan continues to be touted as ‘a done deal’ when in reality it is only a ‘concept plan’ without any feasibility study, without any cost-benefit analysis, and without any environmental impact study. 4) The Port has been lobbying individual organizations for support of its plan for a 200-acre industrial maritime facility and claiming that all displaced State Park recreational facilities can be crowded into an area east of East 72nd St., which would have devastating and negative impacts on Gordon State Park, Intercity Yacht Club and, in particular, to the new Nature Preserve at Dike 14. Please intervene now to stop the Port’s takeover of Lakefront State Park lands between East 55th St. and East 72nd St .
August 6, 200816 yr 2) The Port’s proposal violates the City’s own Lakefront plan, which was created just a few years ago and approved by the City’s Planning Commission after three years of input and approval from thousands of citizens, the State of Ohio , and Cuyahoga County . The Lakefront Plan (aka Waterfront District Plan) has as one of its goals the preservation and expansion of the State Marina and Park from East 55th St. to East 72nd St . This is a major issue in my mind. By what right does the Port step in and override our City's plan for the Lakefront? They aren't even confining their planning to their own site, they are essentially taking over planning for the whole east lakefront.
August 6, 200816 yr Axe that park on E 55th marina. That concerned letter to strickland is weak at best. All they are loosing is rich man dock space. Old current port space, can be used for everything the letter complains about loosing BUT dock space. This spot is best for a port, its next to nothing but undersused industiral lands, a highway, and E 55th industrial spine. Best for trucks, instead of the mess of them navigating through the flats and downtown.
August 6, 200816 yr Actually, that marina is a "working man's" marina, judging by the dock rents, folks who are there, and quality of boats docked there. Carry on.
August 7, 200816 yr 2) The Port’s proposal violates the City’s own Lakefront plan, which was created just a few years ago and approved by the City’s Planning Commission after three years of input and approval from thousands of citizens, the State of Ohio , and Cuyahoga County . The Lakefront Plan (aka Waterfront District Plan) has as one of its goals the preservation and expansion of the State Marina and Park from East 55th St. to East 72nd St . This is a major issue in my mind. By what right does the Port step in and override our City's plan for the Lakefront? They aren't even confining their planning to their own site, they are essentially taking over planning for the whole east lakefront. I would assume that the City consulted the Port when they put together the Lakefront Plan. Now the Port is saying that it would prefer a different location. I really don't see how this is a problem if the City is on board. Judging from everything that we've heard, the City and the local neighborhood CDCs are supportive of the move (except for the bird-watchers on Dike 14).
August 7, 200816 yr I'm actually surprised that residents chose to live at Quay 55. It is so removed from anything else. The nice lake views are pretty much it. Any reports on where the marina would move to or would it be no more? And good point on no rail access shown. ^I've heard a Port Authority Board member state that their intention is to relocate the E. 55th marina's capacity to Whiskey Island in some manner. He did not specify beyond that. I might have some more info on this next week.
August 7, 200816 yr 2) The Port’s proposal violates the City’s own Lakefront plan, which was created just a few years ago and approved by the City’s Planning Commission after three years of input and approval from thousands of citizens, the State of Ohio , and Cuyahoga County . The Lakefront Plan (aka Waterfront District Plan) has as one of its goals the preservation and expansion of the State Marina and Park from East 55th St. to East 72nd St . This is a major issue in my mind. By what right does the Port step in and override our City's plan for the Lakefront? They aren't even confining their planning to their own site, they are essentially taking over planning for the whole east lakefront. I would assume that the City consulted the Port when they put together the Lakefront Plan. Now the Port is saying that it would prefer a different location. I really don't see how this is a problem if the City is on board. Judging from everything that we've heard, the City and the local neighborhood CDCs are supportive of the move (except for the bird-watchers on Dike 14). Primarily it is a problem because the Lakefront Plan was the largest community visioning process in the City's history. The public got very involved in it and excited about it, and now we are throwing at least a third of it away in one swoop because an unelected board has decided that this is their preference.
August 7, 200816 yr yet it's a good siting for the port, which has got to go. i wouldn't get too upset about the lakefront plan, it's a long-term guide, not something to be followed to the letter.
Create an account or sign in to comment