Interesting.  Has to be more to all this.  Somebody pissed off somebody.

 

Yet the administration while bend over backwards for Gilbert.

 

Was there really any vocal opposition to this? I mean, aside from Zack "Better call Uber" Reed?

Interesting.  Has to be more to all this.  Somebody pissed off somebody.

 

Yet the administration while bend over backwards for Gilbert.

 

Was there really any vocal opposition to this? I mean, aside from Zack "Better call Uber" Reed?

 

 

I watched all of the committee meeting and the only person who voiced strong opposition was Reed (even though he ended up voting yes!). Everyone else just seemed confused and couldn't understand what this does. It was as if people were afraid of doing something that we've never done before. Imagine that!

I think its way too vague.  I don't object in theory but tax dollars shouldnt be spent on private parking lots, landscaping or security..,  very surprised frank veto'd it though.  Seems like he'd be a little more in tune with council president on the matter

I think its way too vague.  I don't object in theory but tax dollars shouldnt be spent on private parking lots, landscaping or security..,  very surprised frank veto'd it though.  Seems like he'd be a little more in tune with council president on the matter

 

I'm not well-versed in this, but can you explain how this is any different than funding the Downtown Cleveland Alliance employees?

I think its way too vague.  I don't object in theory but tax dollars shouldnt be spent on private parking lots, landscaping or security..,  very surprised frank veto'd it though.  Seems like he'd be a little more in tune with council president on the matter

 

I'm not well-versed in this, but can you explain how this is any different than funding the Downtown Cleveland Alliance employees?

 

I see no difference in terms of the big picture. But regarding the details I suppose this is different because the cost will be put directly on the consumer. Cimperman brought up a good point that the hesitation about the FEB tax was very similar to that about the DCA when it was first proposed.

Wow.  That seems ridiculous.  This would have essentially been a tax on wealthy entertainment seekers and tourists to maintain and program public space open to all.  I just don't understand the thrust of the arguments against.  Seems like a purely symbolic political maneuver over a practical one.

 

I know that's been the pitch, but I don't believe that. It's not like this thing is going to be exclusively for tourists. There's no way to make sure that it doesn't hit Clevelanders. No way. Plus I agree with one of the concerns that it will hurt the development's ability to compete with the Crocker Park's of the region. I get what they were trying to do, but I think it could do more harm than good so I'd veto it too

I think its way too vague.  I don't object in theory but tax dollars shouldnt be spent on private parking lots, landscaping or security..,  very surprised frank veto'd it though.  Seems like he'd be a little more in tune with council president on the matter

 

I'm not well-versed in this, but can you explain how this is any different than funding the Downtown Cleveland Alliance employees?

 

I see no difference in terms of the big picture. But regarding the details I suppose this is different because the cost will be put directly on the consumer. Cimperman brought up a good point that the hesitation about the FEB tax was very similar to that about the DCA when it was first proposed.

 

DCA is paid by businesses themselves, not consumers. Totally different

Wow.  That seems ridiculous.  This would have essentially been a tax on wealthy entertainment seekers and tourists to maintain and program public space open to all.  I just don't understand the thrust of the arguments against.  Seems like a purely symbolic political maneuver over a practical one.

 

I know that's been the pitch, but I don't believe that. It's not like this thing is going to be exclusively for tourists. There's no way to make sure that it doesn't hit Clevelanders. No way. Plus I agree with one of the concerns that it will hurt the development's ability to compete with the Crocker Park's of the region. I get what they were trying to do, but I think it could do more harm than good so I'd veto it too

 

There's no doubt it would hit Clevelanders - but look at the retail in FEB.  It's mostly nightclubs and high price point restaurants targeting suburbanites and tourists.  For those worrying about the regressive nature of sales taxes - this isn't a tax on modest neighborhood services necessary for working people.  If you were going to levy a special tax on the neighborhood Dave's to pay for a park, I could see the outcry.  But here, much less so - just take a look at the prices on Lago's menu.

 

For the politicians who use the "defend the little guy" trope to death (basically all Cleveland politicians), I would think this would be a slam dunk.  Like I said before, this is essentially taxing the rich to pay for the upkeep of public space on the water. 

 

Next, is Mayor Jackson the person to decide how this will be able to compete with Crocker Park?  I mean, this has been requested by Fairmount themselves.  Fairmount is almost certain to keep this in a long hold situation, wouldn't they be incredibly better situated to make that analysis?  I certainly think so.

 

If anything, I could see this being used as a tool imposed by the public sector on private developments to the private developer's dismay.  So who is responsible for maintenance on the public boardwalk now?  Does that have to be budgeted out of the City's general fund?  Good luck with that.  Now you've saddled the general tax base of Cleveland with the maintenance of a public good that a wealthy development was going to voluntarily pick up the tab for.

 

I'm not saying Jackson doesn't have good reason to oppose this - I'm just having a terrible time trying to figure out what that reason is.

I think its way too vague.  I don't object in theory but tax dollars shouldnt be spent on private parking lots, landscaping or security..,  very surprised frank veto'd it though.  Seems like he'd be a little more in tune with council president on the matter

 

I'm not well-versed in this, but can you explain how this is any different than funding the Downtown Cleveland Alliance employees?

 

I see no difference in terms of the big picture. But regarding the details I suppose this is different because the cost will be put directly on the consumer. Cimperman brought up a good point that the hesitation about the FEB tax was very similar to that about the DCA when it was first proposed.

 

DCA is paid by businesses themselves, not consumers. Totally different

 

How can you say that it's totally different? Businesses obtain their income directly from consumers; either way the consumer bears the cost.

I'm just surprised this idea wasn't vetted by the stakeholders with the mayor before the city council vote

I think its way too vague.  I don't object in theory but tax dollars shouldnt be spent on private parking lots, landscaping or security..,  very surprised frank veto'd it though.  Seems like he'd be a little more in tune with council president on the matter

 

I'm not well-versed in this, but can you explain how this is any different than funding the Downtown Cleveland Alliance employees?

 

I see no difference in terms of the big picture. But regarding the details I suppose this is different because the cost will be put directly on the consumer. Cimperman brought up a good point that the hesitation about the FEB tax was very similar to that about the DCA when it was first proposed.

 

You're right, costs are born directly by the consumer in this proposed plan, vs the Downtown Cleveland Alliance is a tax on the property, paid by the building owners.

 

The other big difference in my mind is that the DCA ambassadors are there to keep the streets "clean & safe".  Mostly labor.  This new proposal for the flats is more of a capital improvement program for actual infrastructure maintenance, which should be carried by the developer

I think its way too vague.  I don't object in theory but tax dollars shouldnt be spent on private parking lots, landscaping or security..,  very surprised frank veto'd it though.  Seems like he'd be a little more in tune with council president on the matter

 

I'm not well-versed in this, but can you explain how this is any different than funding the Downtown Cleveland Alliance employees?

 

I see no difference in terms of the big picture. But regarding the details I suppose this is different because the cost will be put directly on the consumer. Cimperman brought up a good point that the hesitation about the FEB tax was very similar to that about the DCA when it was first proposed.

 

DCA is paid by businesses themselves, not consumers. Totally different

 

How can you say that it's totally different? Businesses obtain their income directly from consumers; either way the consumer bears the cost.

 

It is a DIRECT tax on the business owners themselves in DCA. With FEB it would be a DIRECT tax on consumers.

Wow.  That seems ridiculous.  This would have essentially been a tax on wealthy entertainment seekers and tourists to maintain and program public space open to all.  I just don't understand the thrust of the arguments against.  Seems like a purely symbolic political maneuver over a practical one.

 

I know that's been the pitch, but I don't believe that. It's not like this thing is going to be exclusively for tourists. There's no way to make sure that it doesn't hit Clevelanders. No way. Plus I agree with one of the concerns that it will hurt the development's ability to compete with the Crocker Park's of the region. I get what they were trying to do, but I think it could do more harm than good so I'd veto it too

 

There's no doubt it would hit Clevelanders - but look at the retail in FEB.  It's mostly nightclubs and high price point restaurants targeting suburbanites and tourists.  For those worrying about the regressive nature of sales taxes - this isn't a tax on modest neighborhood services necessary for working people.  If you were going to levy a special tax on the neighborhood Dave's to pay for a park, I could see the outcry.  But here, much less so - just take a look at the prices on Lago's menu.

 

For the politicians who use the "defend the little guy" trope to death (basically all Cleveland politicians), I would think this would be a slam dunk.  Like I said before, this is essentially taxing the rich to pay for the upkeep of public space on the water. 

 

Next, is Mayor Jackson the person to decide how this will be able to compete with Crocker Park?  I mean, this has been requested by Fairmount themselves.  Fairmount is almost certain to keep this in a long hold situation, wouldn't they be incredibly better situated to make that analysis?  I certainly think so.

 

If anything, I could see this being used as a tool imposed by the public sector on private developments to the private developer's dismay.  So who is responsible for maintenance on the public boardwalk now?  Does that have to be budgeted out of the City's general fund?  Good luck with that.  Now you've saddled the general tax base of Cleveland with the maintenance of a public good that a wealthy development was going to voluntarily pick up the tab for.

 

I'm not saying Jackson doesn't have good reason to oppose this - I'm just having a terrible time trying to figure out what that reason is.

 

It wasn't Mayor Jackson who was speaking on the competitiveness. Other council people and economic development professions have spoken on that, just to be clear. And I agree. A tax on this level on top of the taxes already in place cold lead to a competitive disadvantage.

 

And I'm sorry, and this is no attack on your point, but I think the idea that we can put this tax in and it'll ONLY hit wealthy tourists is a crock. I didn't believe it when they said it and I still don't believe it now. That's a bunch of crap. It would be different if they would've said "look, allocate the current sales and bed taxes, etc that you get from our development to this development for upkeep." I would go along with that one. But to try to get a brand new tax and then have the temerity to try to sell to me with a straight face that no Clevelanders will get hit by this tax? That's bull and everybody knows it, including them. And I'm not even making the low income argument. I think middle and high income Clevelanders will be going down there too. It's not gonna just be suburbanites and tourists. And I'll never agree that Clevelanders should pay extra in taxes to go to their own stuff, but ONLY in this development. Nope. Sorry. Not buying what they're selling. I'm a big proponent of FEB, but I can't support this

How can you say that it's totally different? Businesses obtain their income directly from consumers; either way the consumer bears the cost.

 

If that were true, why adopt some special taxing district? Why wouldn't the developer just build this charge into the lease?

 

There's a certain sleaze factor to this proposal, IMHO. It's a gimmick that relies on the opacity of sales taxes.  If customers are really happy to pay more, the right way to do this is to have the businesses and developer pay into this fund directly, and they can just increase menu prices and hotel rates as they see fit to make up the difference. The only benefit of this method is that it lets Aloft advertise the same rates as today, so it doesn't lose any hotel bookings.

 

The whole idea of a special taxing district that covers land all owned by the same firm is a red flag. The reason why need government involvement for SIDs is because they cover multiple owners, so there are serious collectively action and free rider problems.

How can you say that it's totally different? Businesses obtain their income directly from consumers; either way the consumer bears the cost.

 

If that were true, why adopt some special taxing district? Why wouldn't the developer just build this charge into the lease?

 

There's a certain sleaze factor to this proposal, IMHO. It's a gimmick that relies on the opacity of sales taxes.  If customers are really happy to pay more, the right way to do this is to have the businesses and developer pay into this fund directly, and they can just increase menu prices and hotel rates as they see fit to make up the difference. The only benefit of this method is that it lets Aloft advertise the same rates as today, so it doesn't lose any hotel bookings.

 

The whole idea of a special taxing district that covers land all owned by the same firm is a red flag. The reason why need government involvement for SIDs is because they cover multiple owners, so there are serious collectively action and free rider problems.

 

Exactly

It's interesting that FEB keeps getting compared to Crocker Park.  On that comparision, does anyone know if Westlake has a special improvement tax or provides extra funding or services for maintenance and improvements at the property or is it all the sole responsibility of Stark, the developer?

I think its way too vague.  I don't object in theory but tax dollars shouldnt be spent on private parking lots, landscaping or security..,  very surprised frank veto'd it though.  Seems like he'd be a little more in tune with council president on the matter

 

I'm not well-versed in this, but can you explain how this is any different than funding the Downtown Cleveland Alliance employees?

 

I see no difference in terms of the big picture. But regarding the details I suppose this is different because the cost will be put directly on the consumer. Cimperman brought up a good point that the hesitation about the FEB tax was very similar to that about the DCA when it was first proposed.

 

DCA is paid by businesses themselves, not consumers. Totally different

 

How can you say that it's totally different? Businesses obtain their income directly from consumers; either way the consumer bears the cost.

 

It is a DIRECT tax on the business owners themselves in DCA. With FEB it would be a DIRECT tax on consumers.

 

I get that. But in the end, what is the difference? The money in the end comes from  CONSUMERS.

^ Its easier to hide a tax from consumers because it's assessed after the purchase.  Therefore, it doesn't factor into up front costs.  The fees charged by the DCA are charged on the companies so we can assume they are "baked in" to the sales price of the goods being offered - up front.

How can you say that it's totally different? Businesses obtain their income directly from consumers; either way the consumer bears the cost.

 

If that were true, why adopt some special taxing district? Why wouldn't the developer just build this charge into the lease?

 

I don't know, that's a good question. Maybe charging the direct tax on the consumer is more streamlined and efficient?  You can certainly see from a business standpoint that raising the leasing rates puts more onus directly on the lessee.

It wasn't Mayor Jackson who was speaking on the competitiveness. Other council people and economic development professions have spoken on that, just to be clear. And I agree. A tax on this level on top of the taxes already in place cold lead to a competitive disadvantage.

 

I just don't think the government can assess that better than the developer, who has all vested interest in a successful project.

Here's Michelle's new piece about the veto: http://www.cleveland.com/cityhall/index.ssf/2015/02/cleveland_mayor_frank_jackson_44.html#incart_m-rpt-1

 

I guess the one part of this that could make it somewhat less odious to me is that the money (reportedly) would be spent on "public areas."  I don't exactly know what that means, though. After looking around on the county GIS site, it looks like the city does own the boardwalk, so does have a direct stake in maintaining it. The roadways still seem to be owned by the developer, though maybe they'll be deeded over at some point.  The parking clearly isn't really a public asset- it's will be owned by the developer, and they will pocket all the revenue, so no thanks. 

 

But all that said, I'd much prefer a BID here. Or Wolstein/Fairmount joining the Downtown SID and brining in DCA to keep the boardwalk clean or whatever. Currently the FEB is just outside the Downtown SID assessment areas: http://www.downtowncleveland.com/about-us/special-improvement-district.aspx

^ Its easier to hide a tax from consumers because it's assessed after the purchase.  Therefore, it doesn't factor into up front costs.  The fees charged by the DCA are charged on the companies so we can assume they are "baked in" to the sales price of the goods being offered - up front.

 

Exactly. The cost of the goods in the DCA situation is baked up front. This tax would be in ADDITION to the cost of that particular product, not to mention it would be DOUBLE taxed

And again, if there's no difference, then why do this at all? The argument that the DCA is essentially the same thing is the perfect argument to NOT do the special tax thing

And again, if there's no difference, then why do this at all? The argument that the DCA is essentially the same thing is the perfect argument to NOT do the special tax thing

 

It's NOT the same as DCA, really not at all, not in any way. 

 

DCA is a property assessment and believe owners can actually opt out if they choose to.  Aside from that, it's core services are "clean & safe" ambassadors, economic development, marketing & advocacy.

 

This proposed tax at FEB is a TAX on goods & services, born by the consumer, not the property owner, and the proceeds are used for maintenance and other capital improvements like lighting & landscaping & such.

^ Not to be argumentative, but I've actually seen DCA employees doing quite a bit of landscaping. You can see them en masse on E. 12th.

^Indeed. It's not clear to me (or maybe to anyone yet) whether this money would be spent much differently from what DCA essentially does.  Per the Michelle articles:

 

...the money from those surcharges, estimated at $1 million a year, on average, could help maintain aspects of that experience, such as a riverfront boardwalk; green space; lighting; more costly and environmentally friendly road surfaces; and security around entertainment venues.

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2015/02/flats_east_bank_dining_shoppin.html

 

The money will be spent on improvements to public spaces, such as roads, sidewalks, landscaping, public parking, parks, utility infrastructure, bike paths and a public boardwalk, as well as security in the district, Fishman said. It cannot, however, be spent on improving buildings owned by the developer.

http://www.cleveland.com/cityhall/index.ssf/2015/02/cleveland_mayor_frank_jackson_44.html#incart_m-rpt-1

 

Really, this project should just join the DCA assessment area. Or better yet, the developer should have contractually obligated itself to provide these things as part of its negotiation with the city.

And again, if there's no difference, then why do this at all? The argument that the DCA is essentially the same thing is the perfect argument to NOT do the special tax thing

 

It's NOT the same as DCA, really not at all, not in any way. 

 

DCA is a property assessment and believe owners can actually opt out if they choose to.  Aside from that, it's core services are "clean & safe" ambassadors, economic development, marketing & advocacy.

 

This proposed tax at FEB is a TAX on goods & services, born by the consumer, not the property owner, and the proceeds are used for maintenance and other capital improvements like lighting & landscaping & such.

 

I know that. A few posts above you would've seen me argue that. This point was in response to a poster that said that there was no difference. Theoretically if there's no difference, then why do u need the special tax anyway? That was the point. In fact, my post confirming how I felt about it is DIRECTLY ABOVE the post you responded to. Sigh

Having the city maintain the boardwalk would not be a good thing. They can barely provide routine maintenance to city infrastructure as it is...They'd be spending the absolute minimum. I'm sure Wolstein wanted to go this route because they'd have greater control over how their money is spent...and there is no option to diverting some of the funds generated here to other parts of downtown.

 

I'm not saying that the things slated for the tax shouldn't be on the developer, but you also can't tell them how to spend their money. Without a dedicated stream of money, it's all gonna come down to business.

Flats East Bank tax not the right tool to help ensure success: editorial

 

By Editorial Board

on February 18, 2015 at 7:15 AM, updated February 18, 2015 at 7:16 AM

 

The Flats East Bank project -- a long-anticipated revival into a mixed-use neighborhood of the part of the Flats closest to downtown -- is shaping up to be a boon for Cleveland.

 

The project includes an attractive new office building anchored by strong tenants such as Ernst & Young. There's the hip Aloft hotel and upscale restaurants. And when the second phase is done along the Cuyahoga River, there will be 242 apartments, retail and more restaurants.

 

It's an amazing transformation that should serve as a catalyst for the further renewal of the once-popular Flats. The Wolstein Group and Fairmount Properties, which are developing the project with ample public support, should be commended. Their development should receive all reasonable and necessary city support in road upkeep, bulkhead repairs and the like.

 

But that shouldn't include giving the developers the ability to impose special taxes on visitors to the section of the Flats they control.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/02/flats_east_bank_tax_not_the_ri.html#incart_opinion

Downtown Cleveland Alliance seeks proposals to spruce up area near Main Avenue Bridge underpass

 

Have some ideas for beautifying the area under and around the Main Avenue Bridge underpass? wants to hear from you.

 

DCA said it’s seeking proposals for “unique and attractive design solutions” for the area at the intersection of West 9th Street and Main Avenue. The proposals are part of what DCA calls its “continued efforts to elevate downtown Cleveland” as part of the Step Up Downtown plan, which identifies 18 key connections “where real or perceived gaps exist and need to be improved to create a cohesive connected downtown.”

 

With support from the Cleveland Foundation and other partners, DCA said it’s hosting a competition “to identify a creative professional or team — including architects, designers, artists, engineers, landscape architects or combination thereof — to develop a design solution for the Main Avenue Bridge underpass.”

 

DCA released a Request for Qualifications with a deadline of March 6. The formal RFQ is here.

 

The Main Avenue Bridge site “is a critical pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular connection between the Warehouse District and the Flats East Bank, with infrastructure, history and functional potential to inspire the highest level of creative treatments,” DCA said in an email seeking proposals. “While the Main Avenue Bridge is a significant structure and an integral part of Cleveland’s Rust Belt landscape, the underpass is currently perceived as a barrier to the Flats.”

 

DCA said three finalists will be chosen on or before April 1 to develop proposals for the project. Each selected finalist will receive an honorarium of $8,500 plus reimbursable travel costs of up to $3,000. Applicants “can expect an approximate total budget of $800,000 inclusive of all professional fees, expenses for design, fabrication, shipping, engineering, insurance, site preparation and installation costs,” DCA said.

 

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20150219/BLOGS03/150219837/downtown-cleveland-alliance-seeks-proposals-to-spruce-up-area-near

 

http://www.downtowncleveland.com/stepupdowntown/main-avenue-bridge-design-competition.aspx

 

 

 

$800K up for grabs... I'm sure we would be able to come up with something good from the UO community!

back when the FEB was coming out of the ground, I heard that Cleveland Public Power agreed to relight the underside of that bridge so long as the FEB development used CPP instead of First Energy.  I guess it ain't happening.

Step 1: Tear down the Shoreway bridge.

Step 2: There is no step 2.

Step 1: Tear down the Shoreway bridge.

Step 2: There is no step 2.

 

You can't be serious...

Yes, I'm suggesting the Downtown Cleveland Alliance organizes a good ol'fashion bridge razing. Kind of like a barn-raising, but not. The DCA ambassadors can bring a sledgehammer to work.

Step 1: Tear down the Shoreway bridge.

Step 2: There is no step 2.

 

You can't be serious...

 

Where I grew up in NJ there were lots of high arcing bridges over waterways. They could work on the Cuyahoga too. I'd love to see a cost-benefit analysis of sacking the bridge and routing that traffic at ground level.

 

Anyone have an independent study at CSU or Case and wanna tackle this? 

Can't find it anywhere but if I recall the bridge is scheduled for a 2017 paint job. Would be nice if they could move that up a bit.

back when the FEB was coming out of the ground, I heard that Cleveland Public Power agreed to relight the underside of that bridge so long as the FEB development used CPP instead of First Energy.  I guess it ain't happening.

Hopefully lighting will be a part of whatever plan they move forward with.  Bright lighting is just critical.  Perhaps moving, multicolored lighting.

NOACA traffic count study from 2006-2009 shows the Main Avenue Bridge carrying 35,000 cars per day, close to double the current count of the Detroit-Superior Bridge, which is where most of that traffic would go, after it was dumped onto.... W. 3rd or W. 6th, I suppose.

 

Google Maps suggests this would add about 3 minutes to drive time in current traffic, but I'd estimate a little more given the amount of extra traffic that would be routed through the WHD.

What Detroit-Superior might look like if the Main Avenue/Shoreway bridge was no longer there.....

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,766.msg745299.html#msg745299

The Main Avenue Bride is an iconic structure and I think it is very attractive. It provides a neat backdrop for that area of the Flats and gives you the perspective that you are actually in a valley. I think the area would lose a lot from an aesthetic stand point if the bridge were removed. Not to mention, the views from the Shoreway on the bridge are some of the best in Cleveland, imho.

Yes, I'm suggesting the Downtown Cleveland Alliance organizes a good ol'fashion bridge razing. Kind of like a barn-raising, but not. The DCA ambassadors can bring a sledgehammer to work.

 

Maybe they can sign up Tony Hayne as a consultant, if he's out of prison yet.... :wtf:

The Main Avenue Bride is an iconic structure and I think it is very attractive. It provides a neat backdrop for that area of the Flats and gives you the perspective that you are actually in a valley. I think the area would lose a lot from an aesthetic stand point if the bridge were removed. Not to mention, the views from the Shoreway on the bridge are some of the best in Cleveland, imho.

 

Agree it looks cool. The views are great. I'm just wondering whether that justifies the cost of maintaining it, and the cost of keeping those commuters so isolated from civilization.

 

Agree it looks cool. The views are great. I'm just wondering whether that justifies the cost of maintaining it, and the cost of keeping those commuters so isolated from civilization.

 

The Main Avenue bridge is nearly 20 years older than the Inner Belt bridge and its the same steel-truss design. The Inner Belt bridge was on its last legs. The cost of replacing the Main Avenue bridge may be higher than the Inner Belt bridge ($600 million) which isn't as lengthy. In fact, the Main Avenue bridge is the longest in Ohio at 1 mile, yet has one-third to one-fourth the traffic of the Inner Belt bridge. That may be a tough replacement to justify.

The Main Avenue Bride is an iconic structure and I think it is very attractive. It provides a neat backdrop for that area of the Flats and gives you the perspective that you are actually in a valley. I think the area would lose a lot from an aesthetic stand point if the bridge were removed. Not to mention, the views from the Shoreway on the bridge are some of the best in Cleveland, imho.

 

I was absolutely serious about wanting to see the Main Avenue bridge torn down. An at-grade bridge reconnecting Main Ave between the East and West banks of the Flats doesn't sound appealing to you? Or the acres of developable land on the West Bank or Warehouse District that become usable when the bridge supports and right-of-way are removed?

 

That will provide considerably higher aesthetic (and real) value than the view from a highway above the city. Though, I do agree there is something cool about being under the bridges in the Flats. It might not be worth the cost to rebuild this bridge. It's value was also diminishes by the increased capacity of the two new I-90 bridges.

 

The Main Avenue bridge is nearly 20 years older than the Inner Belt bridge and its the same steel-truss design. The Inner Belt bridge was on its last legs. The cost of replacing the Main Avenue bridge may be higher than the Inner Belt bridge ($600 million) which isn't as lengthy. In fact, the Main Avenue bridge is the longest in Ohio at 1 mile, yet has one-third to one-fourth the traffic of the Inner Belt bridge. That may be a tough replacement to justify.

 

Very interesting facts to consider.

I once heard Hunter Morrison question the wisdom of spending millions to refurbish that bridge back in the mid 1990s, when he was planning director. He joked that it should be converted to a bikeway, given all the redundant auto capacity added via the I90 and 490 bridges. 

I once heard Hunter Morrison question the wisdom of spending millions to refurbish that bridge back in the mid 1990s, when he was planning director. He joked that it should be converted to a bikeway, given all the redundant auto capacity added via the I90 and 490 bridges. 

 

If it doesn't survive as a road bridge, perhaps parts of it could re-purposed. In the 1990s, a plan started gaining some support to use the under-bridge truss to support a gondola-lift/aerial-tramway, but with the road deck remaining. Perhaps that part of the cross-river truss structure could retained even if the rest of it is demolished? I don't know structural engineering, so maybe it's not technically feasible. But I'll bet there's some way of doing it.

 

Its a good thing odot isn't spending tons of money to connect a boulevard to this decaying structure...

Its a good thing odot isn't spending tons of money to connect a boulevard to this decaying structure...

 

That boulevard (called Bulkley Boulevard back then) was built as a dirt road and lakefront parkway for horse-drawn carriages decades before anyone ever thought of constructing the Main Avenue High Level Bridge. Bulkley Boulevard started at the NW corner of the intersection of Detroit Avenue and West 25th Street. It wasn't until the East Shoreway was planned that the Main Avenue bridge was built to connect Bulkley Boulevard to it.

^^ you don't want ODOT to deconstruct the road from a freeway to a 35-mph boulevard?? That would actually support what people are wanting to do here...getting rid of the Main Avenue bridge.

 

That said; getting rid of the bridge would cause a whole host of problems. First, I think people greatly underestimate the cost of demolition. The state would not demolish that bridge unless it was unsalvagable. Then come the route upgrades to connect the boulevard adequately with Detriot Ave. Then what do you do with the section of shoreway downtown? Restrict traffic to eastbound only? Spend money to reroute traffic westbound to Superior Ave? I could come up with more logistical issues that would in turn cost $$$.

 

These questions might arise one day when looking at the structure and the ONLY option is demolition, but until then nothing proactive is going to happen. The powers at be will point to Captain America closures as evidence.