5 hours ago, MyPhoneDead said:

I never understood EXACTLY what this was for. Did I miss something? The link doesn't take me anywhere.

Sent from my Pixel 8 Pro using Tapatalk
 

It will keep the buskers out of the rain.

Dang, I thought maybe it was gonna be some kind of retro Arby's.

yeah isn't this right outside of the ESPN studio? I can totally see it being one of those desks you see them sitting at on the side of the football field at halftime or post game. They could probably do a little segment here  for pre-game for the Browns maybe? Idk seems like a weird thing to build lol

6 hours ago, MyPhoneDead said:

I never understood EXACTLY what this was for. Did I miss something? The link doesn't take me anywhere.

Sent from my Pixel 8 Pro using Tapatalk
 

@MyPhoneDead, at first glance , I was also in the same boat with you. After giving it more thought, I think this little amphitheater/stage could have a two-fold impact…

 

1). A venue dedicated to music and theatre along the boardwalk will increase foot traffic, encourage a lively atmosphere and create a popular meeting-up spot.

2). From the river and the West Bank, this structure becomes a highly visible landmark that, along with the performances could become a beacon that encourages traffic movement between the two banks of the river.  
 

Just a guess.

Their initial concepts had a band playing in it, I think it makes sense as it becomes a DORA

I found the inspiration for this "structure"

Chicago has the Bean...Cleveland now has the Saddle!

On 11/17/2023 at 12:29 PM, ArtMasterCLE said:

@MyPhoneDead, at first glance , I was also in the same boat with you. After giving it more thought, I think this little amphitheater/stage could have a two-fold impact…

 

1). A venue dedicated to music and theatre along the boardwalk will increase foot traffic, encourage a lively atmosphere and create a popular meeting-up spot.

2). From the river and the West Bank, this structure becomes a highly visible landmark that, along with the performances could become a beacon that encourages traffic movement between the two banks of the river.  
 

Just a guess.

For everyone not in the know, Welcome To The Farm in the flats is co-owned by Chase Rice (country musician). The bar is very popular and has been attracting Chase and his friends. It's a bit of a mini-Nashville for lack of a better term. More and more live music there, random celebrities showing up and playing a few songs or some sing-a-longs (recently Zach Bryan showed up). Next to it is FWD which has major DJs scheduled all summer. Elsewhere throughout the city, new clubs are popping up so the scene isn't just West 6th/West 9th. (crobar, Smoke & Mirrors, etc.) We already have mainstays like Mahals/Happy Dog/etc. but in general, this type of little outdoor spot for musicians is huge for The Flats becoming a music destination. I wasn't able to see The Flats when it was comparable to NOLA or when rock music was at it's biggest but there has been real growth in the scene.

Plans usually follow soon when a new design review case is opened, so I guess this is positive movement on the Samsel Supply Co. building renovations.

 

https://planning.clevelandohio.gov/designreview/brd/detailDR.php?ID=4549&CASE=DF 2023-068

 

Downtown/Flats Case #  DF 2023-068

Address: 1235 & 1285 Old River Road

Company: RHM Real Estate Group

Architect: Dimit Architects, LLC - Scott Dimit, Howard Hayden

 

https://www.crainscleveland.com/real-estate/oswald-cos-leases-three-floor-flats-east-office-tower

 

 

Oswald HQ moving to Flats East Bank

By Ken Prendergast / December 15, 2023

 

Oswald Companies today announced that it has entered into a lease agreement to move its headquarters to a larger space at the former Ernst & Young tower on the East Bank of the Flats, a prominent fixture on the downtown skyline. Once all necessary approvals are received, the move will be completed in 2024 and plans include a name change to Oswald Tower.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2023/12/15/oswald-hq-moving-to-flats-east-bank/

If l'm reading correctly Oswald is going from 80,000 to 100,000 sq. ft. with an option to need even more in the future. That's the best news - that office expansion is in the offing and not office contraction. 

 

In the grand scheme of things Cleveland has a quite small downtown office scene, at least compared to the New York's and Chicago's of the US. If it's difficult for us to find companies to fill downtown office space imagine what the larger cities are dealing with. Thank God SHW is in an expensive mode. With all the empty space nationwide the need for new office buildings going forward should be at a turtle's pace. If it wasn't for government offices and residential l'm afraid we wouldn't be seeing much new construction at all.

 

Not great news for us city lovers. 

Disagree. I think we're doing OK. But I responded in more detail in the downtown office market thread.

 

 

I could be misinformed but I never understood why our city's developers never proposed a more diverse array of activities and offerings in the Flats. Would love to see a ferris wheel similar to the Centennial Wheel in Chicago. I know there was (is) another phase in the works but again, I would like to see something other than a new bar or restaurant open up in this town. How about a Movie Theater, VR Arcade, Plant Shops, a Japanese Sake store. Just copy developments like The Wharf in D.C. 

16 minutes ago, toolivechris said:

I could be misinformed but I never understood why our city's developers never proposed a more diverse array of activities and offerings in the Flats. Would love to see a ferris wheel similar to the Centennial Wheel in Chicago. I know there was (is) another phase in the works but again, I would like to see something other than a new bar or restaurant open up in this town. How about a Movie Theater, VR Arcade, Plant Shops, a Japanese Sake store. Just copy developments like The Wharf in D.C. 

 

The Wharf is what the East Bank could be, without a doubt. The East Bank would be better though, just based on location alone.

5 hours ago, toolivechris said:

I could be misinformed but I never understood why our city's developers never proposed a more diverse array of activities and offerings in the Flats. Would love to see a ferris wheel similar to the Centennial Wheel in Chicago. I know there was (is) another phase in the works but again, I would like to see something other than a new bar or restaurant open up in this town. How about a Movie Theater, VR Arcade, Plant Shops, a Japanese Sake store. Just copy developments like The Wharf in D.C. 

I thought the next phase of development was going to include a theater. Seems like that has stalled out for now.

On 12/22/2023 at 8:33 PM, Rustbelter said:

I thought the next phase of development was going to include a theater. Seems like that has stalled out for now.

Pretty sure that stalled because of Scott Wolstein's passing.

Coming before planning commission this Friday....

 

Flats East Bank Old River Road Renovation & New Construction: Seeking Schematic Design Approval

Project Addresses: 1198, 1204, & 1220 Old River Road

Hmmm. This on the west side of the street across from Samsel. I wonder what they have planned.

18 minutes ago, simplythis said:

Hmmm. This on the west side of the street across from Samsel. I wonder what they have planned.

 

Darn I was hoping these were the vacant lots. 

The current state of those buildings is run down and blighted, and the location is incredibly prime. I might actually be more happy replacing (or reactivating) these buildings than I would be to see those parking lots gone. Blighted looking buildings don't belong that close to such a large entertainment district, and the fact that they're on the water just adds insult to injury. The idea that there's any abandoned waterfront buildings within the Flats East Bank area is ridiculous. Hopefully this is the start of correcting that. 

3 hours ago, Ethan said:

The current state of those buildings is run down and blighted, and the location is incredibly prime. I might actually be more happy replacing (or reactivating) these buildings than I would be to see those parking lots gone. Blighted looking buildings don't belong that close to such a large entertainment district, and the fact that they're on the water just adds insult to injury. The idea that there's any abandoned waterfront buildings within the Flats East Bank area is ridiculous. Hopefully this is the start of correcting that. 

100% agree. Those buildings are magnificent assets that should not be sitting there rotting away.

 

Collision Bend is a prime example of how those buildings should be used.

 

Also, The Odeon also needs to be brought back to life (or replaced with something better).

4 hours ago, Ethan said:

Blighted looking buildings don't belong that close to such a large entertainment district, and the fact that they're on the water just adds insult to injury.

Sorry Ethan--not sure of your age but I found incredibly funny as someone who spent a good chunk of my 20's partying in "blighted looking" buildings on Old River Rd in the Flats! 

it's the same buildings only abandoned for 20 years

 

George plans new Flats redevelopment
By Ken Prendergast / January 17, 2024

 

Scheduled to appear before the City Planning Commission’s Design Review Committee this Friday is a proposed redevelopment of several Flats East Bank properties. It’s the latest effort by restauranteur Bobby George and his Cleveland-based firm Ethos Hospitality Group to remake these riverside buildings into a restaurant and entertainment complex. This time it would include a new building, a dockside “river garden” and rehabilitated historic structure.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2024/01/17/george-plans-new-flats-redevelopment/

It would be nice to see a better rendering of the addition to the 1220 building from the street.

Is either 1204 or 1220 Old river rd the building where the very popular D'Poos bar of

the '80's or '90's located? Or was that further up the street towards the lake?

BTW: Has George done ANYTHING with his plans for the Samsel building across the street.?

23 minutes ago, simplythis said:

BTW: Has George done ANYTHING with his plans for the Samsel building across the street.?

 

It's in the article 

The private boardwalk will hopefully receive pushback. If we want lively river, you need to be able to walk/bike/hang out from the RR bridge through Settlers Landing (at least). 

9 minutes ago, GISguy said:

The private boardwalk will hopefully receive pushback. If we want lively river, you need to be able to walk/bike/hang out from the RR bridge through Settlers Landing (at least). 

He'd be able to argue Collision Bend and the newly approved redevelopment of 1330 Old River Rd don't have public boardwalks.

itove ultimately bis going to be to narrow old river road and expand the walking area

2 hours ago, downtownjoe said:

He'd be able to argue Collision Bend and the newly approved redevelopment of 1330 Old River Rd don't have public boardwalks.

 

True, but at some point the city needs to push back. The river is a public asset (and public money goes towards keeping their businesses from falling into the river). 

 

The city talks a big game about lakefront/water access but then does stuff like 1330. It's unfortunate and shortsighted. 

yeah not the dream developor that's for sure, but it's fine.

 

it looks nice and thoughtful, let them do what they know how to do.

 

i just wish there was housing on the way so it doesn't turn solely back into the partytown flats again.

3 hours ago, GISguy said:

The private boardwalk will hopefully receive pushback. If we want lively river, you need to be able to walk/bike/hang out from the RR bridge through Settlers Landing (at least). 

 

Absolutely. Boardwalks don't work unless they take you somewhere. If they're "private" and don't allow pedestrians to pass through we're talking about a DOCK.  

The Metroparks has to have some plan in mind for the block of buildings between Settlers Landing, and the parking lot it purchased. Bobby George will never let a public boardwalk traverse his properties without 800 billboards and all the restaurant spaces on East 4th in return.

 

However, that’s not the end all. The Metroparks could turn the parking lot into a park, with a meandering path taking you to Old River Road, and maybe that was the plan all along. To bring people to the street side of the businesses for that stretch. The sidewalk on that side of ORR is like 20 feet wide, and it’s a one way street.

^ The sidewalk could also be boardwalk in sections where jerk property owners are not cooperative about public riverside access. 

I actually think a boardwalk parallel to old river road doesn’t make any sense. The current board walk goes from FWD to where the Lindy’s lake house property starts then goes back behind it to a bike rack, the boat shuttle, then to the sidewalk down old river road then to settlers landing. 
 

I think it makes sense as it is right now and in the concept presented, I think the river front parallel to old river road should remain what I’d call semi-private (can be enjoyed from a patio with drinks and food). Not sure why we’re crying wolf over this property plan when 1330 and collision bend have been great experiences not to mention I think old river road has great buildings and could become its own little E4th

 

6 hours ago, downtownjoe said:

He'd be able to argue Collision Bend and the newly approved redevelopment of 1330 Old River Rd don't have public boardwalks.

Right and I don’t think everything on the river especially in this section needs to have a boardwalk directly on the water. I think equally important is having some sort of entertainment/dinning/some type of activation directly in the water. plus this section of old river road is a nice detour 
 

Edited January 18, 20241 yr by BoomerangCleRes

I would rather have what Chicago has, a boardwalk/pathway that follows the river. They required businesses that were renovating buildings to have public access onto the water.

1 hour ago, JB said:

I would rather have what Chicago has, a boardwalk/pathway that follows the river. They required businesses that were renovating buildings to have public access onto the water.

The river walk also isn’t continuous on both sides it pops up at times because there’s high rises on both side I get your point of from this point on we should require it but I don’t think we NEED it in this stretch, pretty sure we could have a longer boardwalk than Chicago between planned developments and metroparks buying up properties on the river front I don’t see why everything in red could be a boardwalk

*except for maybe where those lovely land owners for the past 200 whatever years have been on the northern portion of Scranton peninsula 

Edited January 18, 20241 yr by BoomerangCleRes

29 minutes ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

The river walk also isn’t continuous on both sides it pops up at times because there’s high rises on both side I get your point of from this point on we should require it but I don’t think we NEED it in this stretch, pretty sure we could have a longer boardwalk than Chicago between planned developments and metroparks buying up properties on the river front I don’t see why everything in red could be a boardwalk

*except for maybe where those lovely land owners for the past 200 whatever years have been on the northern portion of Scranton peninsula 

 

Looking at that map it's actually cool to see that we already have/have solidified plans to have boardwalk in a lot of those areas. The large Irishtown Bend and the Tower City riverfront project will certainly be a huge help but I believe the developments on the Scranton Peninsula have public access, there's already a few other metropark properties that have access, and even one more they recently bought that they are making plans for as well. 

 

So actually it makes me more miffed if we let just a select few businesses privatize the riverfront when we're getting close to unifying it. I get that Collision Bend and 1330 already have privatized access but don't let mistakes of the past affect the future in my opinion. We gotta stop that at some point.

12 minutes ago, dwolfi01 said:

 

Looking at that map it's actually cool to see that we already have/have solidified plans to have boardwalk in a lot of those areas. The large Irishtown Bend and the Tower City riverfront project will certainly be a huge help but I believe the developments on the Scranton Peninsula have public access, there's already a few other metropark properties that have access, and even one more they recently bought that they are making plans for as well. 

 

So actually it makes me more miffed if we let just a select few businesses privatize the riverfront when we're getting close to unifying it. I get that Collision Bend and 1330 already have privatized access but don't let mistakes of the past affect the future in my opinion. We gotta stop that at some point.

It wouldn't make sense to force one location to have a public boardwalk while allowing Lindey's, Collision Bend and 1330 private access. I'm in support of public access but it would be a worse experience for the public having one little piece and the rest disconnected (also unfair to this redevelopment and I am someone who boycotts George's establishments).

What would be a great pedestrian experience is to allow this, and clean up the portion of Old River Rd, redevelop Samsel, Odeon and old Hooters to be more public/pedestrian friendly. Then one day consider having this stretch be another street that gets closed off to parking OR vehicle's in the future to allow for parklets/outdoor dining/etc. String lights up, make it fun and inviting and you've got yourself an awesome new addition to the East Bank experience. 

Edited January 18, 20241 yr by downtownjoe

If precedent meant all projects have to be reviewed with the same conditions, then cities can't ever change their policies. That's obviously not realistic. The city has been talking about requiring public access to the water for years, partly because of projects like Lindy's and Collision Bend that don't have it.

11 minutes ago, Mendo said:

If precedent meant all projects have to be reviewed with the same conditions, then cities can't ever change their policies. That's obviously not realistic. The city has been talking about requiring public access to the water for years, partly because of projects like Lindy's and Collision Bend that don't have it.

I think the city is on top of more than we’re giving them credit, that’s an assumption based off the work that was done mapping the vision for the valley

45 minutes ago, Mendo said:

If precedent meant all projects have to be reviewed with the same conditions, then cities can't ever change their policies. That's obviously not realistic. The city has been talking about requiring public access to the water for years, partly because of projects like Lindy's and Collision Bend that don't have it.

 

This. If we never ask for anything better then we'll be stuck with what we have forever. It's worth raising a stink regardless of Lindy's/1330/Collison Bend, unfortunately Mr. George has the legal resources to really make it painful for the city. If the administration cares about waterfront access then they'll at least push for something. Shoot, look at how landmarks essentially killed Bridgeworks over maintaining a view of a church steeple - riverfront access is much more important (on both sides of the river!).

 

Look at Pittsburgh and their embrace of their riverfront(s) - there are multiple trails on each that coexist with new developments.

1 hour ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

The river walk also isn’t continuous on both sides it pops up at times because there’s high rises on both side I get your point of from this point on we should require it but I don’t think we NEED it in this stretch, pretty sure we could have a longer boardwalk than Chicago between planned developments and metroparks buying up properties on the river front I don’t see why everything in red could be a boardwalk

*except for maybe where those lovely land owners for the past 200 whatever years have been on the northern portion of Scranton peninsula 

 

I looked at this a while ago. And we're surprisingly close on large sections of this. With some proper and consistent leadership I think it's an attainable goal! 

 

On 3/3/2023 at 12:56 PM, Ethan said:

So I was curious how attainable a boardwalk / riverfront trail is along these banks. So I made a quick sketch up where green is completed, yellow is planned, and orange/red are not planned. Orange sections strike me as easier lifts as they are currently parking or undeveloped. There's also a lot of variation in how planned some of the yellow sections really are. (Blue is alternative major paths close to the river).

 

 

Honestly though, all the red/orange sections strike me as very attainable. It will just take quality leadership and some money. I'd very much like to see this be one continuos path, hopefully some day soon!

 

(P.S. I'd also love to see an additional pedestrian river crossing north of center and south of Carter, maybe cable cars hanging from the bridges?).

 

11 hours ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

I actually think a boardwalk parallel to old river road doesn’t make any sense. The current board walk goes from FWD to where the Lindy’s lake house property starts then goes back behind it to a bike rack, the boat shuttle, then to the sidewalk down old river road then to settlers landing. 
 

I think it makes sense as it is right now and in the concept presented, I think the river front parallel to old river road should remain what I’d call semi-private (can be enjoyed from a patio with drinks and food). Not sure why we’re crying wolf over this property plan when 1330 and collision bend have been great experiences not to mention I think old river road has great buildings and could become its own little E4th

 

I've been slowly drifting towards this opinion. Sure, I very much like the idea of a continuous boardwalk, but a short detour down a revitalized Old River Road with plenty of riverside dining patios seems fine to me. It could be Very nice if done well.

 

If I was starting from scratch I'd have a continuous boardwalk, but we're not, these restaurants won't give up their patios easily, nor should they. If the city wants to come up with an innovative idea such as @marty15suggested (and I wouldn't be at all surprised if he's right that more is going on behind the scenes than we realize) I'm all for it! 

 

48 minutes ago, Mendo said:

If precedent meant all projects have to be reviewed with the same conditions, then cities can't ever change their policies. That's obviously not realistic. The city has been talking about requiring public access to the water for years, partly because of projects like Lindy's and Collision Bend that don't have it.

If the city wants to push back fine, as long as they have a plan, it's great, I hope they do! I just don't want them to turn down a real development plan for a vague idea that may never materialize. And unless they have a way to continue this boardwalk past George's property and through Collision Bend, 1330, etc, I don't think it's worth it. 

^ again the sidewalk can double as a boardwalk. This is done other places and is perhaps the only practical way to get around unwilling private owners

What are the property rights for these parcels? Does the property line extend into the river or do they include waterfront rights? 

 

If not then could the Metroparks or city just drop some pylons and build a board walk over the river around these parcels?

Just now, Luke_S said:

What are the property rights for these parcels? Does the property line extend into the river or do they include waterfront rights? 

 

If not then could the Metroparks or city just drop some pylons and build a board walk over the river around these parcels?

Building over the river could affect shipping traffic. I agree with @surfohioroute the "boardwalk" along the sidewalk to go around buildings where you have to.  I think it'll still be a great experience.