Again, this isn't a natural riverfront nor can it be.  It's walled off with steel.  There's no need to replace sand because the water doesn't touch the land here.  The end of the Cuyahoga is primarily a shipping channel.  We can't have it all, and there's no sense in having a halfass version of something more appropriate for Miami when we can focus on what's apporpriate for our own climate.  Think about the #1 gripe about the stadium location-- prime land rendered usable 8 times a year.  You put a beach here and you just threw out nine months of usefulness.

It's temporary and a great use of the space in the interim.

 

And if they can do it in Chicago, Toronto, NYC, and Phily why cant this be done in Cleveland?

 

If it's temporary it's as good as any other use for empty land.  But I do hope we eventually move forward with re-urbanizing the flats.  And I could be wrong, but I doubt these other cities have beaches right up on their shipping channels.  I mean, you're specifically not supposed to be in the water here.  Doesn't that defeat the purpose of a beach?  Cleveland has well-located beaches that tons of people enjoy.  But this is a... counterintuitive... location for one.

 

327, the beaches in NYC were in places where dilapidated docks had previously been.  and one floated right up to 145 street.  Gov. Island is closed, but they made a beach that faced the tip of Manhattan.

 

The beach in Philly was south of penns landing near the naval base.

 

Not exactly "prime" or "central" locations like the flats but people traveled to them.

^  I get it, you're kidding... right?

 

I wasn't trying to imply that this would be the best thing that could ever possible happen in the Flats, but I think if it's well though out and tailored to Cleveland, a 'beach' could work. I'd use it.

It's not that big of a deal.  And I'm not anti-beach generally.  But we're talking about a specific plot with specific characteristics.  This isn't a former dock or a site near a dock, this *IS* an operating dock.  You can't go in the water here at all.  This is the same logic behind not putting a "mountain bike" facility on flat land along East 55th.

 

As shs96 noted, people are already tempted to go swimming here, and most of them die.  They die.  shs96 probably saved some people's lives by not letting them try this.  And we wanna put a beach there?  Illogical, Captain.   

It's not that big of a deal.  And I'm not anti-beach generally.  But we're talking about a specific plot with specific characteristics.  This isn't a former dock or a site near a dock, this *IS* an operating dock.  You can't go in the water here at all.  This is the same logic behind not putting a "mountain bike" facility on flat land along East 55th.

 

As shs96 noted, people are already tempted to go swimming here, and most of them die.  They die.  shs96 probably saved some people's lives by not letting them try this.  And we wanna put a beach there?  Illogical, Captain.   

 

If this is advertised and marketed at a non swimming beach or park, how would anyone THINK that they would be coming to swim??

 

Give people the benefit of doubt!

 

I don't understand why there such a negative reaction to something that could be executed properly, could be a huge hit.  Temporary, but a huge hit.

 

Can't you look for or see anything positive about this?

 

 

 

Can't you look for or see anything positive about this?

 

 

Yes, they're putting up two new buildings.

^LOL!  Guys, this is a temporary use!!  Isn't the boardwalk supposed to be built along the river's edge, including where the temporary beach is supposed to be located?  Of course this is going to be part of phase 2, but plans don't show that this will be a beach forever. 

 

If it works, great.  We can construct a beach along the riverfront or lakefront elsewhere.  But it's not that big of a deal- it's a temporary usage, and one that might end up being a great experimentation of potential land use along our industrial river and lakefront.

Wow, am I on cleveland.com?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hto_Park_and_Urban_Beach_Skyline.jpg

 

If done right, it can work and become NON-temporary.  Or, become a "test market" for a better site along the lake when that plan happens.

I think they should make the "beach" a decent size and try to pull an AVP tournament.  You'd get some really cool backdrops with the sand volleyball and the bridge/buildings in the background.

It's not that big of a deal.  And I'm not anti-beach generally.  But we're talking about a specific plot with specific characteristics.  This isn't a former dock or a site near a dock, this *IS* an operating dock.  You can't go in the water here at all.  This is the same logic behind not putting a "mountain bike" facility on flat land along East 55th.

 

As shs96 noted, people are already tempted to go swimming here, and most of them die.  They die.  shs96 probably saved some people's lives by not letting them try this.  And we wanna put a beach there?  Illogical, Captain.   

 

If this is advertised and marketed at a non swimming beach or park, how would anyone THINK that they would be coming to swim??

 

Give people the benefit of doubt!

 

I don't understand why there such a negative reaction to something that could be executed properly, could be a huge hit.  Temporary, but a huge hit.

 

Can't you look for or see anything positive about this?

 

 

 

What, based on past performance, gives you the impression it will be executed properly? 

 

Like I said earlier, you don't market a marina as a "parking lot" since parking lot implies cars and marina implies boats.

 

Call it what it is:  Park with sand volleyball courts, picnic areas, shops, etc.

 

I'm not saying that wouldn't be great - that would be really cool.  I'm not  being critical of the type of use that you are suggesting...I'm saying that's not the impression I get from the article, nor am I going to give them the benefit of the doubt that they are describing the same thing you are when they say "Riverfront Beach" in the article.

All I gotta ask is, who is going to clean said "beach?"

 

Anyone who has boated the Cuyahoga knows it's filled with logs, dead fish, trash, condoms, beach whistles, etc....

 

All of these things would end up on the "beach" on a daily basis.

All I gotta ask is, who is going to clean said "beach?"

 

Anyone who has boated the Cuyahoga knows it's filled with logs, dead fish, trash, condoms, beach whistles, etc....

 

All of these things would end up on the "beach" on a daily basis.

 

The beach itself isn't going to actually touch the water.  It's going to end at the bulkhead and be a few feet above the water level.

^^LOL!!  The bulkheads line the river, which is several feet lower than where "said 'beach'" will be!  I don't think logs will be floating on to the beach when it's constructed, but condoms?  Those might.

Who cares about the beach?  How big of a deal is it? and why have you guys been bickering about it for the last two pages? 

 

They are throwing some sand down instead of grass. It is temporary.  It's not the focal point of the project, get over it. 

Who cares about the beach? How big of a deal is it? and why have you guys been bickering about it for the last two pages?

 

They are throwing some sand down instead of grass. It is temporary. It's not the focal point of the project, get over it.

 

amen! Finally a voice of reason.

 

Way to kill a good Sim-City buzz....  :-D

Who cares about the beach?  How big of a deal is it? and why have you guys been bickering about it for the last two pages? 

 

They are throwing some sand down instead of grass. It is temporary.  It's not the focal point of the project, get over it. 

 

Because once something gets designated as "family friendly greenspace" it seems to become so much harder to ever build on it.  Isn't that the reason the Shaker Green Line can never be extended, because there's a park at the end of it?  These things matter, in fact it may be critical to get them resolved now and not later.  We want to make sure we pursue the highest and best use for this land.  (That, in my mind, would closely resemble xu9697's Toronto pic but much more compact.  That pic is of a plaza with a boardwalk, which seems appropriate for the Flats... there's no beach in that picture... there's not an industrial port in it either... love the residential towers)  And several people have indeed suggested that we construct some sort of permament beach.  Also, the discussion itself has been enjoyable.

<i>Isn't that the reason the Shaker Green Line can never be extended, because there's a park at the end of it?</i>

 

It's not that the Green Line can never be extended, it's that the density doesn't exist to warrant said extension.  Also, The City of Beachwood owns the property at the end of the Green Line, and has no incentive to sell it to an entity (RTA) that isn't willing to purchase it.  The Flats East Bank beach is expensive downtown property owned by a private entity that has every incentive to build on it rather than keep it undeveloped.

from this picture Mayday posted, which shows the 'beach' taking up about 1% of the riverfront land, and this description from Michelle Jarobe in the .bomb comments section (god was it painful to wade through those) :

 

"A 14-acre park, a 1,200-foot riverfront boardwalk, and a riverfront beach with volleyball courts."

 

I can't believe there is so much banter about this :lol:

I regret mentioning the beach...

 

Jeez guys! I don't think it's the best idea in the world, but it's only temporary! At least they aren't leaving that area ugly and undeveloped until it's built on! And if this idea of an "urban beach" is successful in Cleveland, maybe they could build one on the lakefront later.

The problem with the "beach" posts is that some people are being too strict with their definition of "beach".

 

When I first moved to Cleveland from Puerto Rico, a friend asked if I wanted to go to the beach.  Sure, I said, but asked how long is the drive to the ocean?  He laughed and said we are going to Mentor.  I laughed, but humored him.  Only to be blown away by the great "beach" that was available to me even though I was hundreds of miles from the ocean.

 

Many years later, in 2006, for the World Cup I visited Germany and Switzerland.  To my surprise, the definition of "beach" was once again expanded.

 

Both Zurich and Berlin use their rivers to create beaches.  Zurich, is blessed with beautifully clean, yet bitterly cold, water so their residents actually swim in it, but it is still in a very urban environment.

 

Berlin:

http://www.capital-beach.eu/content/view/22/43/

In addtion to this "beach", you can rent barges that go up and down the Spree River with sand volleyball courts and tiki bars on them (and very loud music).

 

Zurich:

This is on the Limmat River.  People of all ages (I saw a mom put her 8-9 month old in the water with her) jump in the frigid (low 50's) water from the bridges, ramps, etc.  There are also sand volleyball courts.  And many more bathhouses and beaches along the lake in the city.

 

Summer:

http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/12595577.jpg

 

Volleyball:

http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/12595426.jpg

 

Winter:

http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/6688655.jpg

http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/20446879.jpg

 

 

I like that rendering McCleveland.  Definitely gives a good scale as to how the building would frame in the Main Ave bridge.

 

Can't wait to pump some iron then rollerblade down to the beach to hit the gyro stand!  :-D

What I can't believe is that so many are still reading this thread.  Apparently people really care about the Flats.  Or beaches... not sure.

 

Those Europe pix look awesome.  They're not beaches at all though, unless beach means "anything whatsoever that's near water."  As far as the law is concerned, a beach refers to where water actually meets the land.  Artificial barriers like we have unbeachify the situation. 

 

I would note that in these pictures of Toronto, Zurich, and Berlin, nobody has attempted to mimic anything resembling a sandy beach... they've developed their riverfront in a way that makes sense for their riverfront.  I would also agree there's really no beach in the Flats proposal at all based on that rendering. 

 

But again... please do not ever jump in the water here.  From a liability perspective (which is how I'm trained to think), it would not be prudent to simulate a sandy beach in the Flats because we already have a problem with people jumping in.  Folks who don't understand the situation could be misled by beach-like conditions.  Also, I recommend against putting a swingset and merry-go-round in the middle of the CSX railyard.

What I can't believe is that so many are still reading this thread.  Apparently people really care about the Flats.  Or beaches... not sure.

 

Those Europe pix look awesome.  They're not beaches at all though, unless beach means "anything whatsoever that's near water."  As far as the law is concerned, a beach refers to where water actually meets the land.  Artificial barriers like we have unbeachify the situation. 

 

I would note that in these pictures of Toronto, Zurich, and Berlin, nobody has attempted to mimic anything resembling a sandy beach... they've developed their riverfront in a way that makes sense for their riverfront.  I would also agree there's really no beach in the Flats proposal at all based on that rendering. 

 

But again... please do not ever jump in the water here.  From a liability perspective (which is how I'm trained to think), it would not be prudent to simulate a sandy beach in the Flats because we already have a problem with people jumping in.  Folks who don't understand the situation could be misled by beach-like conditions.  Also, I recommend against putting a swingset and merry-go-round in the middle of the CSX railyard.

 

Might I suggest on "thinking" a different way?  Not everything should be taken so literal or is so "black and white".  DAMN!

I would note that in these pictures of Toronto, Zurich, and Berlin, nobody has attempted to mimic anything resembling a sandy beach...

 

Unless I'm seeing things wrong, there is some kind of sand component in the Toronto photo.  I'm actually thinking that the Flats beach might end up being something like that, with the boardwalk along the river and the sand part off of that surrounded by some pathways.

Not everything should be taken so literal or is so "black and white".  DAMN!

 

That's "Black's and Gilbert" in 327 language MTS.

would everyone have felt better if they just would have said, "an area for some sand volleyball courts among the riverfront park"... because that appears what they are doing.  as ragarcia points out, "beach" can have many meanings.

would everyone have felt better if they just would have said, "an area for some sand volleyball courts among the riverfront park"

 

Hoopy frood. 

 

That means yes, by the way, I just decided to use "hoopy frood" instead of yes.

I would note that in these pictures of Toronto, Zurich, and Berlin, nobody has attempted to mimic anything resembling a sandy beach.

 

Unless I'm seeing things wrong, there is some kind of sand component in the Toronto photo.  I'm actually thinking that the Flats beach might end up being something like that, with the boardwalk along the river and the sand part off of that surrounded by some pathways.

 

You are right, and that is why I posted it.  There is sand (perhaps not technically a "beach") that is covered by the yellow umbrellas in the picture. 

 

Someone said it earlier, and they are right on= sometimes people just like the feel of sand on their feet.  A little sand on the feet, a view of downtown and the water, a splash park (my thought) next door.  My feeling is that the beach and splash park should be INTEGRAL to the plan and be right up against the boardwalk.  Otherwise, what do we have?  Certainly, nothing very original.

 

Oh, and the reason we are talking about it so much= well, let's see...we have hotels, buildings, restaurants, office space already in our downtown.  What we don't have is a "beach".  So it is a very interesting, albeit small part of the plan.

 

 

I actually agree with MTS here. 

A small (and fake) beach amongst the grass, whats the problem?  Is it not temporary?

  If its succesful hopefully it would become permanant somewhere.  

A beach can just be about the sand.  Look at the picture upthread with the wooden lounge chairs... (or why the childrens museum has ##tons of sand in it right now, and has had the highest attendance ever.

People like to be able to take their shoes off and feel sand, and this is an awesome vantage point for the bridges/ships etc.  

 

327, why are you comparing it to the stadium?  Its either going to be sand or grass....  Youll still have the option of being on grass. 

 

I agree with willyboy.  When I go to the beach, I pretty much never even go in the water.  I like the sand.  I like walking on it, laying on it, playing volleyball on it, throwing a football around on it, etc.  I would assume I'm not the only one.  Sure, if you COULD go into the water, that'd be cool, but there are plenty of uses for sand that don't involve going into the water.

 

I also agree that this shouldn't be compared to CBS.  We're talking about a temporary usage of less than one acre of currently unused riverfront land.

To anyone who wants a sandbox in the Flats: I won't stand in your way.  But I solemnly pray that it's temporary.  This land was NOT unused until they tore down the urban environment that had stood there in some form for 200 years.  It was for many people the symbol and the highlight of this city.  If replacing Old River Road with open grass and a patch of sand is progress... then I'm Ronald McDonald.

 

I'm down with sand at the Childrens Museum.  I'm down with sand at Edgewater, Mentor, Huntington, you name it.  But it seems like only yesterday that we were talking about how that new tower and hotel would look surrounded by brick buildings.  When I look at that Toronto picture, my eyes go right past the sand to the towers in the background. 

 

I do not hate sand.  I like it.  But when I think of the Great Wheel of East Bank Plans spinning and spinning and spinning... and stopping on sand... I become despondent.  I hope with every ounce of my being that we're not seriously contemplating replacing a world famous historical district with volleyball courts and a grassy mound.  We already have those.  I'm beginning to wonder if we'll ever have the Flats again. 

 

This is how it starts... someone proposes a temporary "greenspace" and then there are protests if anyone wants to take it away.  When was the last time anything was built here on top of "greenspace?"  Of greater concern-- why do these new renderings only include Phase 1?  http://www.flatseast.com/  Those mature trees in the picture don't look temporary.  Maybe that's just a combination of artistic license and saving money on renderings.     

For those of you poo pooing the idea of a simulated "beach" you are all totally NOT getting the concept of how this can add value, PROMOTE a much better stewardship for these water resources that will not have people throwing crap all over them....bring people closer to the water to appreciate it....provide an environment that fosters MORE interest in maintaining the bio-integrity of the river. Obviously the mindset that poo poos it is one that has been cultivated from years of abuse of the river....one that has seen it mostly look like crap...and as a result, is a mindset that cannot fathom why anyone would ever want to utilize the river in such a way. Its time you drop the backwards thinking and see what other progressive cities have done to implement this concept into the urban fabric. There are many cities with higher density than ours that have added unique features like this.

 

I want to add that this idea is NOT actually a true "beach" in a sense that it is a sort of elevated area as mentioned in earlier posts. Before the river was dredged and Indians occupied the landscape, this was a low lying marshland--an ecologists bio-diversity dream place...and was not even suited for living. MANY at that time could never see why anyone would want to live near the river--and many found living out of the flood plain a much more desirable space---BUT, now we are seeing downtown living in places that we would have never thought of before. So, the point is, hat what one cannot see today, does not mean that this simulated "beach" concept would not become an appealing attraction for the future. The "Beach", its  purpose and positive benefits, although not intended or planned---is indeed a result of the project not being able to be done in full phase---and is not for the purpose of getting people to actually take swims in the river..... but, having said this, even if that does not happen......it  will inspire a cleaner image of the area.

 

Think about this....Geez.. In 100 years we go from river burning, stinky, and filthy...foreboding...to a riverbank that is seeing people picnicking, volleyball, walking, running, fishing, etc. In a city that has endured the brunt of negative images from the former scene, how can anyone NOT see how this image polishing, if nothing else, can go a long way??? This city (and others like it) desperately need to continue to do anything they can do demonstrate a change of mindset in how we regard this river.

 

The fact that questions are posed like "What purpose would this serve?" ..or statements like "Its silly", when reading these posts has me shaking my head and  only reaffirms my belief and convictions that we need a much better education about our river as some us us still quite haven't gotten the message the first time. So, we either take the forward thinking approach and usher in and foster a new way people think about and see the river (so such bewildering qustions would not be asked in the first place)---or continue to don the labels placed on the city as a polluted place. That image has gotten us nowhere so I hope for our sake we will choose the former. There seems to be some silly myth out there that is so scared that if we leave such places open downtown for such recreational uses, that it will somehow compromise or sacrifice the need for urban density. For those who have witnessed examples of how implementing such spaces can be done, that fear is really laughable and short sighted. 

 

No one is saying this is going to be Miami or Bondi beach.... It is just making a wise use of land before it becomes occupied---BUT, if done right, many might discover just how such a feature adds value to the city. I would rather see this scene--and a landscape that promotes better physical fitness, less spending the entire life in a car.....and promotes a healthier populace which results in better economic competitiveness and productivity..... rather than one that promotes nothing but  indulgence...laziness...stuffing our faces.....living life in the car/cocoon....and the longest walk we take is to the restroom or car.. God man, forbid N.E. Ohio slim down a bit! Here is a small, but baby step opportunity to try and help erase some of the negative stereotypes about the city and its people. It is not too often, but for once I totally agree with MTS! He really gets it.

 

 

Cities who implement such attrubutes as enhancing natural features bask in the glow of international praise and are desired places to live.

It seems the positions are laid out, and both have considerable merit.  Cleveland can only benefit from having so many people examine its possible paths with such a degree of depth and passion.

 

With that said, EC, I think you might be barking up the wrong river.  Should the Cuyahoga ever be as foul and embarassing as it was in the 60s?  Hell no.  One hopes we learned our lesson.  But this section of the river is a heavy-industrial shipping channel and it will remain so.  Those steel mills upstream aren't going anywhere... and even if they did, the abatement costs of that land would be staggering.  Thus there's no feasible non-industrial use for it.  What's done is done.  It's sounding like the port isn't going anywhere either... and even if it did, the mills would still need regular shipments in and out, through that channel and no other. 

 

We can only operate within the framework history has given us.  The area in question is an active industrial port, and I really don't think we're going to impress anyone, internationally or otherwise, by shoehorning a small amount of synthetic naturalism into it which-- due to its inescapable context-- cannot compare favorably with any beach or any greenspace anywhere.  Those limitations do not apply to urban development in that same space, so why not put the urban development there and put a new park somewhere else where we can create something truly grand?  There's a reason we don't grow oranges in Minnesota and wheat in Florida... it would result in less oranges AND less wheat. 

 

The fact that greenspace is good (which nobody doubts) does not mean greenspace is equally appropriate for every single plot of land.  No matter how much virtue greenspace and beaches may have, there can never be world class greenspace or a world class beach at this particular location.  Why not make everything in Cleveland-- our greenspace, our beaches, and our urban core-- the best it can possibly be?  For that to happen, we need to be judicious about our site selections and make the most of every acre.       

It's sounding like the port isn't going anywhere either... 

I know there are some hurdles, but I think the plan is still to move the port.

 

PS

I think we all should stop talking about the beach :)

In an effort to put this to bed, I emailed Michelle and she told me it would be a park with beach volleyball courts, picnic areas, etc, with a boardwalk between it and the river.  So this is good.

 

But that isn't a beach.  Words have definitions for a reason.  So unless you don't want to communicate with people, adhere to the definition (and if you read the comments on page 93 that led up to this discussion, there were clearly several people interpreting this as a beach).

It seems the positions are laid out, and both have considerable merit.  Cleveland can only benefit from having so many people examine its possible paths with such a degree of depth and passion.

 

With that said, EC, I think you might be barking up the wrong river.  Should the Cuyahoga ever be as foul and embarrassing as it was in the 60s?  Hell no.  One hopes we learned our lesson.  But this section of the river is a heavy-industrial shipping channel and it will remain so.  Those steel mills upstream aren't going anywhere... and even if they did, the abatement costs of that land would be staggering.  Thus there's no feasible non-industrial use for it.  What's done is done.  It's sounding like the port isn't going anywhere either... and even if it did, the mills would still need regular shipments in and out, through that channel and no other. 

 

We can only operate within the framework history has given us.  The area in question is an active industrial port, and I really don't think we're going to impress anyone, internationally or otherwise, by shoehorning a small amount of synthetic naturalism into it which-- due to its inescapable context-- cannot compare favorably with any beach or any greenspace anywhere.  Those limitations do not apply to urban development in that same space, so why not put the urban development there and put a new park somewhere else where we can create something truly grand?  There's a reason we don't grow oranges in Minnesota and wheat in Florida... it would result in less oranges AND less wheat. 

 

The fact that greenspace is good (which nobody doubts) does not mean greenspace is equally appropriate for every single plot of land.  No matter how much virtue greenspace and beaches may have, there can never be world class greenspace or a world class beach at this particular location.  Why not make everything in Cleveland-- our greenspace, our beaches, and our urban core-- the best it can possibly be?  For that to happen, we need to be judicious about our site selections and make the most of every acre.       

 

 

The land in question is actually a small area of land in the big scheme of available land perspective, so I highly doubt keeping it in recreational/park-like use is going to severely damage the desire for density in the city overall. There are far less parks in our city than parking lots/vacant sites, so why not badger the ideas MORE for existing or proposed parking lots than poo pooing anytime someone has the selfish interest of wanting to designate a few more pedestrian oriented spaces in the city? There are countless parking lots we can eventually build on in this city, as we speak. The "what's done is done" logic is what has us damaging areas beyond repair---and then simply moving on, in the first place. That is levying a huge cost to tax payers in the future, if said lands are the EPA clean-up/superfund sites you are familiar with---AND so, those lands can become nothing more than vacant properties. THAT is the scenario that threatens the higher density more so than a pedestrian/residential mixed space. In other words, we need to pick on things like that. Not so much a tiny slip of sand. I never said creating such was going to be a Yellow Stone National Park or some world class open space. My support of it was more about polishing images and setting a turnaround example--and, reconnecting people with a river.

 

And as for the comment on the port above this one by another poster about the hopes for the port move---Well,  this is a whole different topic for another thread so I won't go there too much...But  if we are all so in favor maintaining some higher quality greenspaces for public use and for important bio-functions along the shore that help prevent the water from becoming a toilet, as many seem to concur, then quickly jumping on that one sided argument we've heard all along from the chamber driven influence, does not demonstrate that we do in fact really have a concern. One expert tour through D-14 might shed some light. I don't think people even know it exists. Anyway, this is another topic, but just wanted to comment on it as the comment above was typical of how the lack of awareness of such a place walks hand in hand with John Q. Public people saying they "get" the idea for maintaining such high quality areas left near shorelines, but are quick to allow such a place to be ruined.

 

 

By the way, I was not interpreting this as a real 'beach' as evidence in my original post.

OMGWTFBBQ A BEACH WHAT ARE THEY THINKING OMG A BEACH IN CLEVE OMG

 

sorry i had to get that out of me.

 

however, on a serious note, I think what they are doing with the land is a great use.. though i fear and hope (yes, at the same time) that it becomes permanent.

 

oh and MTS, I know that there isn't too much merit to the FIRST rendering, but believe-you-me, when someone pays an architect to make a rendering, even in conceptual/massing stages, it is extremely accurate (in conventional designs) to what the client wants and nothing is going to change drastically or fast. example... the rendering of the forest city medical mart was already studied and conceptualized/massed SIX years ago. (i worked in the firm that did it). Just saying I understand what you mean by "dont put too much on the first renderings" but these renderings are made with extreme purpose and we have every right to start to be critical of the built form. Maybe you have had other experiences. Not trying to bicker, just saying heck we wouldnt be on this board if we didnt want to talk about the renderings, right? ;) haha

The Chagrin Lowlands.

Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority approves bonds for Flats project

By Thomas Feran, The Plain Dealer

January 20, 2010, 10:55AM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- A $278 million development on the east bank of the Flats won its next-to-last piece of public financing today, when the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority voted to approve more than $34 million worth of authority-issued bonds.

 

Adam Fishman and Steve Strnisha, representing developers Fairmount Properties and the Wolstein Group, said approval is expected within 60 days for the final piece of public money, from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

 

Fishman said that private financing of the project should be complete at the same time.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/01/cleveland-cuyahoga_county_port_8.html

great news!!  The board walk is new to me... That's going to be along the river right?

great news!! The board walk is new to me... That's going to be along the river right?

 

No, they're gonna suspend it from the Shoreway bridge... :)

 

Sorry, just couldn't resist.  I'm a jerk.

^You said what we were all thinking

So I was in a presentation yesterday afternoon, which partially focused on FEB.  Had the opportunity for the first time to see some renderings on the finished build out and site plan.  The architectural style for future phases is pretty mehhh, similar to the hotel portion.  Brick, kind of curvey.  Site plan isn't too bad, actually very similar to what was initially proposed.  Granted the slide was up for about 30 seconds to a minute so it isn't like I got to study it.  One interesting thing regarding the "urban beach" that seamed to put so many in an uproar :lol:, this place is the size of... and intended for 2 beach volley ball courts.  That's pretty much it... but they are toying with the idea of opening a seasonal restaurant bar behind it until they can move forward with future phases.  This would make this area very similar to the sunset grill on whiskey island.  which isn't such a bad idea methinks in the meantime, even if it is only open 5 months a year.  It was also interesting to see that they plan on building around this little sand volleyball court area in future phases, looks like they want to keep it.  In other FEB news, it is very hard to tell from the initial rendering, but the main material for the E&Y building is actually a metallic alloy similar to the top of key tower.  Knowing this, and seeing some renderings that show it off better, I like that building a hell of a lot more today than I did yesterday.

^Thanks for the update.  Was there any word on a more firm construction start date?

Of course not :)

Not having seen anything, the site plan and style sound great to me... I was pretty worried when they released the "interim" version that only had 2 buildings on it.

Like I said, the earlier site plan looked pretty similar to the newer one with only a few variances.  I think he mentioned the entire site is something like 21 or 24 acres.  The first phase only really acounts for about 5 of those.  They did not mention, and I would have loved to have known, how many phases they anticipate for full build out.  But of course with the rest of the project being primarily residential and retail oriented, hard to see it moving in the near future.  Hopefully by the time phase 1 is complete, the lending environment will be easing up and the momentum from the completed first phase will help them spring forward.  I guess time will tell.

Personally, I think that's a great use. As ragarcia eluded to earlier, Berlin has these all over the place ... along the not-so-scenic Spree Canal, where tiki bars and lounge chairs provide some kitsch, and I think even more interestingly for FEB, at construction sites, where temporary Biergartens help bring in revenue and also can draw visitation to the site before the final use is complete. I love it.

^I agree.  Sunset Grille would be that much more popular if it wasn't so isolated.  I would venture to guess that most clevelanders who are not part of the boating community don't even know it exists and/or don't know how the hell to get there.

^and have no idea what they are missing out on...

 

like I said, they said they were "toying" with the idea.  I hope they do a lot more than toy.  That could be a great draw a lot of people to that whole "park" area.

^I agree.  Sunset Grille would be that much more popular if it wasn't so isolated.  I would venture to guess that most clevelanders who are not part of the boating community don't even know it exists and/or don't know how the hell to get there.

Methinks it's popular enough as is.....too crowded and it wouldn't be nearly as nice :-D