i'm kind of torn. As much as I like E and F, I mostly like them in the "up" position, when they look amazing. But, realistically, what tiny percentage of the time will they spend in the up position?

 

That makes me focus a little more on A and B. I'm not sure why I like A ... it seems like the angled approach would be more boring than a graceful curve, but the angle just interests me for some reason. Or maybe it's that it fits in better with the angled nature of the peninsula it connects to ...

 

Again, I'm just torn ... but happy over so many great choices!

We should choose whichever option is most likely to function most reliably, for the longest time, with the least amount of maintenance.  This is a bridge, not a statue or a piece of jewelry.  I'm not saying it has to be ugly or stricly utilitarian in appearance.  But E and F look... precarious.  There has to be a reason drawbridges don't tend to look like that.

In my humble opinion E in the down position is far and away the most aesthetically pleasing choice.  I actually think it looks more akward up.  F to me ONLY looks interesting when it's up, and is incredibly bland in the down position. I'm certainly no bridge engineer... but I would actually think E could be the simplest being that it only moves in one location... though certainly the stress of carrying the weight of the entire structure in one mechanical spot would be a challenge.  F on the other hand as others have mentioned would more than likely be an unmitigated disaster in terms of upkeep and potential problems.  The rest actually have 2 moving pieces, so maybe E would be "easier".  But certainly B looks to be the most elegant of the more practical options...

 

regardless, it's nice to see such creative proposals to have to choose from.

^I browsed thru the powerpoint presentation they did on this and I thought that concept E was a problem because of the height of the bridge in the 'up' position.  There are pretty strict height guidelines in this location because of Burke, so concept E could actually be a non-starter.

 

With that said, it's probably my first choice as well.

Cleveland City Planning Commission praises Miguel Rosales bridge design for North Coast Harbor

By Steven Litt, The Plain Dealer

November 07, 2009, 7:00AM

 

The Cleveland City Planning Commission considered proposals for two bridges on Friday, heaping praise on one and expressing frustration with the other.

 

Commission members approved with commendation a preferred concept for an innovative, $5 million pedestrian bridge at North Coast Harbor, designed by nationally recognized architect Miguel Rosales of Boston.

 

 

MORE AT http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2009/11/cleveland_city_planning_commis.html

Did anyone see some of the  the comments on the article? More typical minds that are so used to driving that they cannot understand the importance and viability of adding bike lanes on bridges...

Not for nothing, but is this bridge in the right place?    Well, yeah, the innerbelt bridge is in the wrong place, but I'm talking about the North Coast Harbor bridge.  The land directly east of the pier in question is slated to be phase I of the lakefront development plan.  Right now, connecting Voinovich Park with that land would be Alaskan-grade "Bridge to Nowhere."  But I'm told there could be a vibrant neighborhood there in 3-5 years.  Wouldn't it be better to have a pedestrian connection straight from the neighborhood to the park, rather than from the back lawn of the Great Lakes Science Center?

I think you can definitely make that argument... but personally I don't think it's that big of a deal.  It will be about a "one block walk" additional if you are coming from the northernmost area.  Plus the mather is right there and not moving.  Which means the only other location for the bridge would be connecting the two Northern most corners of land... which could like wise be about a "one block walk" for someone. I think it will have a more personal feel to it attaching to the "finger".

"A vibrant neighborhood"

 

 

I would rather see this place along the lakefront be kept open for public access, maybe infused with more cultured attractions. We sorely lack open greenspace downtown so much to the point I don't think many quite realize how valuable it is to enhancing the livability of the city.

^Maybe.  North Coast Harbor has been such a design disaster since inception.  But the opening at the head of the harbor is much wider than the span required for the location now being planned for, so much more $ would be required.

 

It's painful, but it is kind of fun to daydream what could have been if the R&RHOF and the science museum were actually integrated into the existing city instead of being plunked down ion the lake more or less by themselves within their protective mote of lawns, rail tracks and highway.

^Maybe.  North Coast Harbor has been such a design disaster since inception.  But the opening at the head of the harbor is much wider than the span required for the location now being planned for, so much more $ would be required.

 

It's painful, but it is kind of fun to daydream what could have been if the R&RHOF and the science museum were actually integrated into the existing city instead of being plunked down ion the lake more or less by themselves within their protective mote of lawns, rail tracks and highway.

 

I completely agree about the daydreaming stuff. What if the RRHoF was located on the surface lot on Prospect between E4th and the Q? Or on one of the surface lots in WHD..or..

EC, what public is going to bother accessing this land when it sits behind a giant 80,000 seat football stadium?

 

X, I thought the Mather was moving, but if not, I guess it doesn't make sense.  Although a curved bridge at the top of the pier could seem like a neat gateway to the harbor.

It shouldn't be moving. The GLSC is building an indoor walkway to its current location.

Not for nothing, but is this bridge in the right place?    Well, yeah, the innerbelt bridge is in the wrong place, but I'm talking about the North Coast Harbor bridge.  The land directly east of the pier in question is slated to be phase I of the lakefront development plan.  Right now, connecting Voinovich Park with that land would be Alaskan-grade "Bridge to Nowhere."  But I'm told there could be a vibrant neighborhood there in 3-5 years.  Wouldn't it be better to have a pedestrian connection straight from the neighborhood to the park, rather than from the back lawn of the Great Lakes Science Center?

 

I get your point, but I think the key here is that the finger dock already exists and cuts down on the distance needed to be built.  I have to believe, with a design such as the one being proposed that an additional 50-100 feet would exponentially increase cost.

 

And, yes, there is the Mather to consider too... and the fact that we just built the indoor walkway from GLSC to the Mather (ribbon cutting I believe was last week).

^Maybe.  North Coast Harbor has been such a design disaster since inception.  But the opening at the head of the harbor is much wider than the span required for the location now being planned for, so much more $ would be required.

 

It's painful, but it is kind of fun to daydream what could have been if the R&RHOF and the science museum were actually integrated into the existing city instead of being plunked down ion the lake more or less by themselves within their protective mote of lawns, rail tracks and highway.

 

I completely agree about the daydreaming stuff. What if the RRHoF was located on the surface lot on Prospect between E4th and the Q? Or on one of the surface lots in WHD..or..

 

Yeah but what about expansion?  With a museum that is always a challenge.

Just a little minor improvement...but I'm guessing it will be a nice little improvement to the lakefront overall with the whole project:

 

Cleveland planners approve NASA sign at Great Lakes Science Center

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2009/11/post_21.html

City of Cleveland has closed a skate park at North Coast Harbor, but considering a new park in the Flats

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The city of Cleveland plans to build a new skate park along the west bank of the Cuyahoga River in the Flats after closing its current park at North Coast Harbor.

 

City officials and skateboarders say the equipment at the current park, which was built in 2004, has become worn and is no longer safe to use.

 

.................

 

The city plans to convert the old skate park site behind the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum into a venue for food and entertainment. In the meantime, new landscaping, benches and tables will be installed there, a news release said.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/04/city_of_cleveland_closing_skat.html

^That's ashame...especially for the upcoming summer months.  That place always drew a crowd of youngsters.

^That's ashame...especially for the upcoming summer months. That place always drew a crowd of youngsters.

 

Yes, but The Flats could be a better location.  The proposed location is near Hooples, a pizza shop, Ohio City bike co-op and right next to the spot where the new rowing association building will go.  It would be good to have a skate park there.

Maybe they want to think about building something that will last longer than 6 years?

Wasn't the Rock Hall skate park basically given to the city as a result of the X games?  I don't think it was ever meant to be permanent.

^That's ashame...especially for the upcoming summer months. That place always drew a crowd of youngsters.

 

Yes, but The Flats could be a better location. The proposed location is near Hooples, a pizza shop, Ohio City bike co-op and right next to the spot where the new rowing association building will go. It would be good to have a skate park there.

 

I still like the Skate Park at NCH.  Simply becasue, thee is a lot of foot traffic over there and not any drunks/bar patrons in the vacinity that may casue problems around it.  As far as a skate park goes, I think the best spot is in areas that are very visible by passer bys during the day, and not a hangout for people at night. I could see this turing into a problem park in the flats.  JMHO. 

^I don't see Hooples crowd  being a problem. Additionally, it is a little bit too removed from the skate park location to entice too many drunkards.

 

I like the location as long as the rowing association's plans come to fruition. I could see the rowing association's project creating some nice spin off development in the immediate area. Additionally, the Lake Link trail will be on the other side of the river and will link the area to Wendy Park and the Tow Path.

it would be nice to see something else go in there though. That area could use a restaurant

I believe that Sainato's is right there if I am thinking of the right area.  I like the idea of recreation uses in the Flats.  The Towpath can't come fast enough.

I guess I like the park as more of a "destination park", rather then a somewhat "neighborhood park".  The present location forces you to pack your skating gear up, get a lift downtown, and simply skateboard there.  As a neighborhood park, I could see it become more of a place for loitering which may lead into other problems. 

^I think given the location in the flats... it would very much be a destination park, teamed with the rowing facility... making it even more of a destination  :)

 

and I believe they said they are very much looking at a restaurant for the current location.

Here is a crazy idea, how about one in the flats and at NCH. I wonder if some of the stuffed shirts at the RH are getting annoyed with the sk8ers. Just a thought.

It's not really much of a skate park anyway.  If anything it's more of a skater PR move to put a "skate park" in a high profile location like NCH.

 

Build them a REAL skate park in the Flats... you know, with concrete and stuff!

A new Cleveland Skatepark?

It looks like the rumors are true.

 

It looks like Cleveland might be getting a new public Skatepark! I've been seeing this flyer posted around town lately, regarding a meeting for the new public park and a call to the public for their support. After further research, it seems to be true and on its actually on its way to happening. It's all apart of the new development project with the Columbus Road Peninsula of the flats. According to the Public Square Group, the park has been chosen to be designed and built by a company called Grindline, a Seattle based Skatepark firm.

 

The city is seeking input and support for the project this coming Wed. April 28th at Speakeasy, (under Beir Markt) 1948 West 25th Cleveland, OH.

 

http://espn.go.com/action/bmx/blog/_/post/5137920

^I read the article. From all that I've heard, a combo skate park/bmx park is not a good idea. If you put both together, you end up with a park that is sub-par for both.

CLEVELAND: A piece of space history moved from one part of Northeast Ohio to another Tuesday with the help of an Akron company.

 

It's not every day a 12,800-pound Apollo command module that flew in space is loaded onto a flatbed and driven north on Cleveland highways.

 

The module, used for the Skylab 3 mission in 1973, reached its new home Tuesday afternoon at the new NASA Glenn Visitor Center at the Great Lakes Science Center.

 

 

 

There are only 10 NASA visitor centers in the country, and Cleveland's center is the only one north of the Mason-Dixon Line, she said. However, at its old facility near Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, the visitor center was behind security, which made access much more difficult after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, she said.

 

In fact, since its March move, more than 86,000 visitors have seen the new NASA Visitor Center. That's more people than typically would have seen the artifacts in a year at the old location, said Howard Ross, NASA Glenn's associate director for planning and evaluation.

 

http://www.ohio.com/news/96964509.html

 

 

Cleveland to build new marina at NorthCoast Harbor, behind Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

 

Boaters looking to make a short stop at Cleveland's North Coast Harbor may soon have a place to call home.

The city, powered by a $1.5 million federal grant and about $500,000 in matching municipal funds, will finally begin work this summer on a 53-slip marina in the harbor, at the southwest corner of the East Ninth Street Pier.

 

Proposals to give boaters easier access to the doorstep of downtown -- especially the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame and Museum, Great Lakes Science Center and Browns Stadium -- have been talked about for years in the redevelopment plans of more than one city administration.

 

"We think this is an exciting project that will bring some life to our lakefront," said Port Control Director Ricky Smith. "This is really part of a larger lakefront plan that Mayor Jackson has embarked upon.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/03/cleveland_to_build_new_marina.html

Sounds like a good plan.  Even for non-boaters.  Should be a nice informal attraction for the park strollers and visitors who happen to be down there in summer months.  Hopefully it's just the start of making local boating a more visible/accessible part of the city.

 

Looking ahead, it's an interesting question where to put other "public" small craft amenities, like kayak and canoe rentals.  The new CRF Rivergate thing in the flats is obviously a great place, but NCH might make sense for this king of thing too, and might be more visible.

I like the idea. Boats add a nice atmosphere. Also it would be nice to see a restaurant up there. The Hard Rock Cafe could have been interesting but we already have one of those. Maybe the Hard Rock and the Rock Hall could join efforts and create a unique dining experience.

I like the idea. Boats add a nice atmosphere. Also it would be nice to see a restaurant up there. The Hard Rock Cafe could have been interesting but we already have one of those. Maybe the Hard Rock and the Rock Hall could join efforts and create a unique dining experience.

 

Or there's always the "Rock-O-Meter"

Here I go again... $500k of city funds?  Streetlights.  Potholes.  Distressed properties.  I had no idea we were facing such a critical marina shortage.

They will be charging slip rental, and will likely recoup the money within a year.  I believe the lake is an underused asset in the city.

I have no problem with this small investment

^Agreed. It's not like the city can request that a grant from U.S. Fish and Wildlife directed via ODNR's Division of Watercraft be applied to patching potholes (though god knows it'd be nice if they could).

Move the Coast Guard.

Not gonna happen.

I read this story over the weekend.  This is a "parking lot" I can get on board with.  Don't wanna drive to downtown?  Boat to downtown!  Could Canadians in theory come over if they had the right personnel there?

To be clear, you could always dock your boat right there behind the science center.  All this is doing is creating designated slips....... ie telephone pole looking things coming out of the water (I think they are called guy poles) and perhaps a few finger docks so the boats can be pulled in stern/bow fists as opposed to just pulling the starbird/port up against the harbor walls.

^This would also allow boats to stay overnight, no?  I don't think you can do that now.

 

Good question, doctaB about Candian visitors.  Is there a walk-in customs/passport control facility downtown?

 

Move the Coast Guard.

 

What's frustrating is that coast guard boats and army corps equipment could be interesting, visible parts of our waterfront, as they are in other harbors.  But in our case they're hidden behind gated compounds surrounded by surface parking.  I know it's not the army corps' or coast guards' job to enliven our waterfront, so I don't really hold it against them, but if they're not going to move it sure would be cool if their facilities could be reconfigured a bit to make more of contribution or use up less harbor edge (very little of which they actually use).

^This would also allow boats to stay overnight, no?  I don't think you can do that now.

 

Good question, doctaB about Candian visitors.  Is there a walk-in customs/passport control facility downtown?

 

There is a videophone reporting station at the East 55th Marina for Customs/Border Patrol.

 

www.clevelandlakefront.org/Lake%20Erie%20Small%20Boats1.doc

 

http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/travel/pleasure_boats/boats/pleasure_locations/great_lakes.ctt/great_lakes.pdf

^This would also allow boats to stay overnight, no?  I don't think you can do that now.

 

Good question, doctaB about Candian visitors.  Is there a walk-in customs/passport control facility downtown?

 

There is a videophone reporting station at the East 55th Marina for Customs/Border Patrol.

 

www.clevelandlakefront.org/Lake%20Erie%20Small%20Boats1.doc

 

http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/travel/pleasure_boats/boats/pleasure_locations/great_lakes.ctt/great_lakes.pdf

 

Thanks for the info.  So theoretically they could put one of these downtown.  But at least there is one, so one could stop at the E. 55th marina to check-in and then continue on into downtown, no?

I was just on this architect site to re-check the University Park plan in Akron. Saw this for the first time....

 

On The Boards: Cleveland Waterfront

 

In a city of great neighborhoods, North Coast Harbor will be Cleveland’s next “destination” district. The open spaces offer a great variety of environments and experiences, while always maintaining an intimate human scale.

 

Residents and visitors alike will be charmed by neighborhood’s small, intricate alleyways, courts and mews that provide a continual source of visual surprise. They are all interlinked yet diverse – defined by a series of lively places and destinations, including retail-lined streets, parks, courtyards, an enhanced promenade, public terraces and interior winter gardens.

 

Even during the cold winter months, this neighborhood will be a thoroughly walkable place. Here, the buildings and open spaces share symbiotic relationship, one complementing the other.

 

Pretty pics here:

http://www.eekarchitects.com/community/3-inside-eek/135-on-the-boards-cleveland-waterfront

Is this just the Browns proposal?  I noticed the linkage directly to the mall

It sounds more like that plan/study they did previous to the Browns thing. I remember these types of descriptions from that.  Streets were angled to deal with harsh winter conditions.  One of those things you never hear much about again..

"Residents and visitors alike will be charmed by neighborhood’s small, intricate alleyways, courts and mews that provide a continual source of visual surprise. They are all interlinked yet diverse – defined by a series of lively places and destinations, including retail-lined streets, parks, courtyards, an enhanced promenade, public terraces and interior winter gardens."

 

 

Looks nice..  There is plenty of room behind the stadium for this sort of development where the blue warehouse docks and buildings are.