April 24, 200520 yr This is great news - Campbell has to be convinced that the bridge should garner the highest priority. The idea about the boulevard from e55th to university circle is pretty good too, but, the bridge is far superior in importance. Is she blind or what? Lets call the city planning commission and let our voices be heard. Maybe they'll be able to get her to jump on the signature bridge bandwagon. http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/ <---------------- click on contact us The City Planning Commission is advised by a citywide design review committee and several neighborhood-based design review committees. The meeting schedule is as follows: CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 9am, 1st & 3rd Fridays each month Room 514, City Hall DESIGN REVIEW ADVISORY COMMITTEE (Citywide) 1:30 pm, Thursday prior to the City Planning Commission meeting Room 514, City Hall NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN REVIEW ADVISORY COMMITTEES Please call 216-664-2210 for information CITY PLANNING COMMISSION City Hall ~ Room 501 601 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114 216-664-2210 fax 216-664-3281
April 25, 200520 yr I was really pleased to read Litt's article in the PeeDee today. When comparing the two articles that he has devoted to the Inner Belt, the latest one sounds a lot more positive. and that (gulp) it may become a reality. I know getting a "signature" bridge could be great for Cleveland, but does anyone think that it may hurt the density of downtown? If they open up more land for development wouldn't that make people want to build new buildings on the new land instead of investing in the heart of downtown?
April 25, 200520 yr I am not worried about that, because this wouldn't even start for a decade. By that time we will have all the historic rehabs done, for sure (there aren't that many left, really) and I would hope, the lots in the Warehouse District should be mostly developed. From there, its on to the lakefront and this land south of the Jake! I'm actually getting excited that this might happen. It seemed for a while that there was no oomph behind the idea, but it seems to be starting to resonate with community leaders. My one last hope, above and beyond what is already being discussed, is that if we do go the extra mile to build a signature bridge, that it really is "Cleveland's" signature bridge, and not a "me to" cable stayed bridge. I don't know what it should look like yet, but so often this town sees what other places have and then tries to replicate it, instead of being innovative and creating a new expression of itself.
April 25, 200520 yr Good point. That would be awesome if all of the lots in the Ware House district were developed by then. If Cleveland were to keep all of those government jobs, get a new bridge, and launch district park, I would not care if that was the only development news for 2005.
April 25, 200520 yr Litt talks about how ugly the present bridge is. I really don't think it is that bad. Its not a landmark or anything, but its not as bad as the 490 bridge. I wouldn't worry about density. With all that land opening up, I assume that it would start out under govt. control. The city would surely zone it for high density mixed use and hopefully leave space for train to go through the middle of it. They, they would sell it off to developers who will have a ready made plan and time table for construction. I can see how one would say that it would dilute the housing market if we built there. But, the problem is not lack of demand. If we built there and put more people close to downtown, it would help the entire downtown. I see vibrant downtowns in cities with half the size of Cleveland. We need to market our downtown better and make it easier to live there.
April 25, 200520 yr If this happens, it seems like Alsenas is the one who made it happen. We would have to at least buy him a gift certificate or something :).
April 25, 200520 yr Give him a big sloppy one! :wink: Consider the basic things that restrict the growth of housing in downtown Cleveland... Foremost is identifying available land. Some natural features will always restrict that, such as the existence of the Cuyahoga Valley or Lake Erie. And, sometimes it seems easier and less expensive to add landfill to Lake Erie than it is for a serious developer to acquire the surface parking lots in the Warehouse District (or elsewhere)! So, look for projects that have to be done anyway and see how they can be done more creatively to accomplish more than just the project's original goal. That's where projects like the Inner Belt reconstruction comes into play. Alsenas suggested the iconic bridge offered the opportunity to open up land in the valley for redevelopment, between the Lorain-Carnegie Bridge and the Norfolk Southern railroad bridge. I wasn't thinking so much in those terms, but in shrinking the Central Interchange so its remaining land could be developed. I sent my presentation to Alsenas, ODOT, city officials, Litt, developers and others to see what trouble I could create. Hopefully, this will happen, and the lengthened timetable is a good thing -- I was worried it was too late for Alsenas to bring such a big change to the table so late and for others to get on board. But, I figured nothing's too late until construction contracts are let. Either development site (and preferably both) would add to the momentum of downtown housing, rather than disperse existing residents. But, to ensure there exists a synergy between all downtown residential areas and the businesses that serve them, there is going to have to be a high-density (for dependability), fixed-route (for recognizability), transit distribution system in downtown Cleveland. There are individual strands in place (I'm including the Silver Line), but none that allows most downtown destinations to be within 800-1,000 feet of a single circulation route. The makings of such a circulation system exists with the Rapid, which has a little more than half of downtown encircled. More downtown residents will increase the quality and quantity of downtown amenities which, in turn, will further improve the market for more downtown housing. That's the value in linking them with the Rapid. The downtown loop doesn't just represent a route of transit trains, but is a business artery representing the combined purchasing power of all downtown residential areas along the rail loop. It's all about land and linkages. KJP "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 8, 200520 yr What's up with that second option??? I know it is financially less $$$, which they cited as critical to the entire $700 million highway plan for Downtown, but if the current bridge isn't stable, shouldn't the new one try to accommodate both east and westbound traffic??? and how horrible would that be to have TWO ginormous bridges in that spot for the next 40 years?!?! I'm for option 3, which is easy to say, but difficult to execute...
June 8, 200520 yr According to this Web page from the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (http://www.massturnpike.com/bigdig/background/crb.html) the St. Charles River Bridge cost $100 million. That bridge isn't as high above the river as the Inner Bridge bridge would be above the Cuyahoga River, nor is it as long as the Inner Belt bridge would be. The St. Charles River bridge is 1,432 feet long. However, I am concerned that ODOT is proposing an Inner Belt bridge that is longer than it needs to be. If ODOT aligned the bridge at the east end toward the southern part of the old NS Intermodal Yard, and used fill dirt to extend the hillside west, there's no reason the Inner Belt bridge should be longer than 3,000 feet. The current Inner Belt bridge is about 4,500 feet long. Here is the St. Charles River bridge in Boston.... KJP "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 8, 200520 yr Is this good news? I don't read it that way. They are going to build a new westbound bridge. Wouldn't that have to be located to the north of the existing bridge? This seems to say that more land north of the current bridge would be taken up and used for a highway. So, there will be no acreage opening up downtown. I don't see how this plan helps. It pretty much maintains the status quo. The existing bridge will stay there for the next 40 years.
June 8, 200520 yr I don't consider a postive either, especially if the all-new bridge was proposed with a longer span than is necessary. If ODOT is proposing a 4,500-foot-long bridge, like the old one, then I don't see the new bridge happening at all. And, you're right, having two interstate bridges south of downtown for the next 40 years is a horrible thought. Not just the fact that the old bridge is an eyesore, but the area south of Jacobs Field will look like a spaghetti junction on steroids. The only other reason why I hope ODOT is doing this is to help make the case for the all-new bridge, because the other two options, while cheaper, are totally unacceptable! KJP "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 11, 200520 yr In advance of Tuesday's public hearing on the Inner Belt, I'm posting a link to the following diagram. It's a 230K PDF document displaying my concept for the Inner Belt realignment, as part of the rebuilding project and new Cuyahoga Valley bridge. It includes a new neighborhood, light-rail loop around downtown, and more. I hope local stakeholders and ODOT officials see it (and like it). I hope all of you do too! http://members.cox.net/corridorscampaign/Inner%20Belt%20Hood1.pdf I also added a JPG version, but it's 948K, at: http://members.cox.net/corridorscampaign/Inner%20Belt%20Hood.jpg KJP "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 12, 200520 yr That's pretty cool. I like the idea of having more of a built-up environment between Gateway and the Interstates. Even if the WFL doesn't loop through downtown, it would be great if the red/blue/green lines had a second downtown stop. The walkway between Tower City and Gateway would probably get used less, though, but it would allow for more pedestrian traffic in this area before, during and after sporting events.
June 12, 200520 yr This would be fabulous. I would like to see the lower levels of our two fantastic bridges used for public transit. The additional downtown stop would be nice as the huron/prospect/bolivar housing increases going toward PSH.
June 13, 200520 yr ARTS & LIFE Proposed Cuyahoga Valley Bridge Is Mediocre at Best Cleveland just won a victory — sort of — in the debate over whether to build a new interstate highway bridge over the Cuyahoga Valley as a gateway to downtown. So why not cheer? Because, like so many other aspects of urban design in the city, the solution proposed by the Ohio Department of Transportation is a mediocre compromise. It’s unlikely to achieve the highest potential in either beauty or economic development, despite a cost that will run to hundreds of millions of dollars. A column.
June 14, 200520 yr Steve Litt will have another column on the subject, probably tomorrow. I will try to be at tomorrow's open house for the first part of it, but if I can't get there early, I'll have to pass and rely on the eyes and ears of others. KJP "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 14, 200520 yr An open house will be from 4:30 to 8:30 p.m. Tuesday (June 14) at the Myers University Club, 3813 Euclid Ave. See the PD article posted a little farther up this string at: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=3697.msg36577#msg36577 KJP "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 14, 200520 yr Litt's commentary on the new bridge, from 6/14/05. KJP is mentioned in the article... URBAN PLANNING City should push for inventive Inner Belt plan Tuesday, June 14, 2005 Cleveland just won a victory -- sort of -- in the debate over whether to build a new interstate highway bridge over the Cuyahoga Valley as a gateway to downtown. So why not cheer? Because, like so many other aspects of urban de sign in the city, the solution pro posed by the Ohio Department of Transportation is a mediocre com promise. It's unlikely to achieve the highest potential in either beauty or economic development, despite a cost that will run to hundreds of millions of dollars. More at cleveland.com http://www.cleveland.com
June 14, 200520 yr Gosh, how did that happen? :roll: KJP "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 15, 200520 yr Tuesday's hearing was a major-league bummer. I'll comment more on it tomorrow, but it seems ODOT still continues downtown redevelopment a low priority and isn't very interested in trying to find a way to make it work. They seem more interested in highway engineering than in using all that's at their disposal to rebuild the community through which their highway runs. Actually, I don't blame ODOT so much for that, because the City of Cleveland dictates the land use and can push ODOT in a direction that's beneficial to Cleveland. But Cleveland isn't making much noise about this, I think because they fear having too much ODOT money going to the Inner Belt project and not having enough left over for other things, namely the University Circle Access Boulevard and possibly the Lakefront Boulevard. But, one thing is clear, ODOT continues to believe its primary mission is to move as many vehicles as possible, as fast as possible. I think a former mayor of San Francisco said it best, when the Embarcadaro Expressway was proposed, "why do people have to speed through this city? It's a beautiful city and people should get out of your car to really enjoy it." While Cleveland isn't San Francisco, both are shaped by human hands and minds. Cleveland can be as urbane, walkable and dynamic as it wants to be, including being a place where the highway is less important than the urban forms offered by the city, now and in the future. ODOT seems to take an opposite approach, which means the urban wasteland called the Central Interchange will remain for decades to come. Too bad we don't have earthquakes that can level it, like Mother Nature did to the Embarcadaro. Look at how San Francisco suffered when the expressway was removed for a waterfront park. KJP "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 16, 200519 yr Unfortunately, I get the impression that the "big vision" portion of planning never really happened. So now we are in this position, where everyone is bitching about their particular onramp, but the 3 million people of Greater Cleveland aren't being represented as a whole community. The big idea of what the Innerbelt means to the region was glossed over, so of course the only aspect of it that's being examined thoroughly is the obvious- moving cars and goods. The other aspects of what could happen for the communities around it and what opportunities it opens up never came into the light.
June 16, 200519 yr Unfortunately, I get the impression that the "big vision" portion of planning never really happened. So now we are in this position, where everyone is bitching about their particular onramp, but the 3 million people of Greater Cleveland aren't being represented as a whole community. The big idea of what the Innerbelt means to the region was glossed over, so of course the only aspect of it that's being examined thoroughly is the obvious- moving cars and goods. The other aspects of what could happen for the communities around it and what opportunities it opens up never came into the light. You're contradicting yourself. One moment you're saying we should look at the big picture and what the innerbelt means to the entire community, next moment you're bemoaning communities opertunities that never came to light. So should we put everything together for the big picture, take each community seperately, or destroy the village to save it. ;-)
June 17, 200519 yr Magyar, I don't think that he contradicted himself. The big picture means broadening the focus so that it isn't only on moving traffic. We need to look at how to move traffic in a way that helps the city in the broadest sense.
June 17, 200519 yr That's exactly what I'm saying. The big picture is that we need to build a transportation system that best serves the city in the broadest sense of being efficient and coordinating well with other opportunities for making Cleveland the best place that it can be. Instead, what's being shoved down our throats is "Here's the highway. Deal with it." Its backwards thinking, IMO.
June 17, 200519 yr Magyar, I don't think that he contradicted himself. The big picture means broadening the focus so that it isn't only on moving traffic. We need to look at how to move traffic in a way that helps the city in the broadest sense. Again, whole city or individual communities fending for self, disregarding their neighbors. Your post/comments did not address it either.
June 17, 200519 yr Magyar, You need to better explain yourself. Which "neighbors" are being disregarded? Which "individual communities" are fending for themselves? If done properly, this project could open up over 50 acres that are presently greatly underused. No one lives there, no one can buy that property. It is lost land. If it were opened up, it would provide an incredible opportunity for the city to remake its downtown, add an entire neighborhood, increase tax revenues and provide more funding for schools and city services and provide an interesting place to be. There would be a ripple effect on adjacent properties which would seem an increase in property values. Traffic would still move quickly through downtown. There would not be any negative effects on traffic flow. To anyone with vision, this idea is a no-brainer.
June 17, 200519 yr I'm also not sure where you're going with this Magyar. I shall try to explain myself one last time. This is a $700 million investment that is going to remake the southern and eastern edges of the heart of our great metropolitan area, Downtown. The highway can be built in such a way that it enhances Downtown, or in such a way that it doesn't. The highway can be built in such a way that it mends the rift between Downtown and our city's neighborhoods, or in such a way that it becomes an even greater barrier. It can be built in such a way that it becomes a great gateway to the heart of our region, or it can be an uninspired, or even ugly, blight to all who come. It can be built in such a way that it integrates well with other major infrastructure and development initiatives, or in such a way that it doesn't. So yes, in a sense all infrastructure and development is localized, but some development and infrastructure has an impact on the image and liveability of an entire region. Does that explain my point?
June 18, 200519 yr I posted this at Cleveland.com's forum, but I thought it would be appropriate to post it here..... Why does the Greek Orthodox Church have to stand in the way of a project that can vastly improve the core city? I'm not suggesting destroying the church. I'm suggesting that we put it at the heart of an urban neighborhood again. Before someone responds what I'm about to suggest can't be done, consider the following.... The London Bridge was bought in 1967 when it was 136 years old, disassembled, moved from its namesake city, transported across an ocean and a continent, then reassembled over three years in Lake Havasu City, Arizona, of all places. Not sacred enough for ya? How about the Danevang Lutheran Church, which was dismantled then reassembled in a new location. Read about it at... http://www.texasescapes.com/TexasGulfCoastTowns/DanevangTexas/DanevangTx.htm Or, an entire farming village was moved from Germany and reassambled in Virginia... http://www.frontiermuseum.org/Germany.htm Where should the Greek Orthodox Church be moved to? Anywhere the congregation wants. But my preference is the new neighborhood south of Jacobs Field. This would require warehousing the church for several years until the land is cleared. In the new downtown neighborhood, the Greek Orthodox Church could be the anchor of its new community, and provide an historical respite from all the new-fangled construction that would surround it. I would also suggest relocating Sobeleski's University Inn and the adjacent two or three historic homes, moving them across the valley as well. KJP "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 18, 200519 yr I'm also not sure where you're going with this Magyar. I shall try to explain myself one last time. This is a $700 million investment that is going to remake the southern and eastern edges of the heart of our great metropolitan area, Downtown. The highway can be built in such a way that it enhances Downtown, or in such a way that it doesn't. The highway can be built in such a way that it mends the rift between Downtown and our city's neighborhoods, or in such a way that it becomes an even greater barrier. It can be built in such a way that it becomes a great gateway to the heart of our region, or it can be an uninspired, or even ugly, blight to all who come. It can be built in such a way that it integrates well with other major infrastructure and development initiatives, or in such a way that it doesn't. So yes, in a sense all infrastructure and development is localized, but some development and infrastructure has an impact on the image and liveability of an entire region. Does that explain my point? Yes that does a better job.
June 19, 200519 yr I posted this at Cleveland.com's forum, but I thought it would be appropriate to post it here..... Why does the Greek Orthodox Church have to stand in the way of a project that can vastly improve the core city? I'm not suggesting destroying the church. I'm suggesting that we put it at the heart of an urban neighborhood again. Before someone responds what I'm about to suggest can't be done, consider the following.... The London Bridge was bought in 1967 when it was 136 years old, disassembled, moved from its namesake city, transported across an ocean and a continent, then reassembled over three years in Lake Havasu City, Arizona, of all places. Not sacred enough for ya? How about the Danevang Lutheran Church, which was dismantled then reassembled in a new location. Read about it at... http://www.texasescapes.com/TexasGulfCoastTowns/DanevangTexas/DanevangTx.htm Or, an entire farming village was moved from Germany and reassambled in Virginia... http://www.frontiermuseum.org/Germany.htm Where should the Greek Orthodox Church be moved to? Anywhere the congregation wants. But my preference is the new neighborhood south of Jacobs Field. This would require warehousing the church for several years until the land is cleared. In the new downtown neighborhood, the Greek Orthodox Church could be the anchor of its new community, and provide an historical respite from all the new-fangled construction that would surround it. I would also suggest relocating Sobeleski's University Inn and the adjacent two or three historic homes, moving them across the valley as well. KJP This is a great idea... is it being pushed for or does anybody know about it?
June 19, 200519 yr If this was the only barrier to going forward with this proposal, I would be stoked about it. As it is, though, it's just one more reason that they'll add to their list of many for not pursuing the option any further... Anyways, great work KJP!
June 19, 200519 yr I think that the city is not behind this project because they want the University Circle access boulevard. From what I gather, if we get the nice bridge idea, we would lose out on the UC access boulevard. I think that we are forgetting about the economic benefits that could flow from the UC blvd. Besides creating better access to UC, it would open up a lot of land for development. There are numerous brownfields in that area that will continue to rot unless developers are given a reason to redevelop them. I think that the city sees the area as an opportunity to provide accessible quality space for manufacturers who have to leave the area due to the lack of alternatives. This is just my guess.
June 20, 200519 yr Why does the Greek Orthodox Church have to stand in the way of a project that can vastly improve the core city? I'm not suggesting destroying the church. I'm suggesting that we put it at the heart of an urban neighborhood again. That's definitely outside-the-box thinking (to use an overused cliche!)...any idea on how much that would cost? I'm sure without a thorough inspection is would be impossible to estimate, but I couldn't find any figures on costs for the moves you mentioned. I'd assume we're talking about a couple million which, on the scale of a highway project, is completely doable...
June 20, 200519 yr wimwar, You are correct, but I think a cost analysis of the southern bridge alignment -- with a bridge that's 1,500 feet shorter by using the existing hillside that juts out to the west and upon which the NS intermodal rail yard was located. At the west side of the valley, ODOT would be able to keep its western bridge abutment on the south side of Abbey Road, thereby limiting the west hillside's movement from affecting the bridge. I think ODOT also doesn't like having the eastbound exits onto Ontario and East 9th be direct-access, rather than a cloverleaf loop. I've addressed this before, as the cloverleafs would only be one lane wide whereas the direct-access ramps could be several lanes wide to stack more cars (see the Shoreway's westbound exit ramp onto East 9th for an example). And, once the Central Interchange has been dramatically shrunk to avail the land for redevelopment, the city could use a TIF from that area, as well as along the University Circle Access Boulevard to help pay for the UCAB. They could also use federal transit funds by relocating the Red Line down the middle of the UCAB, to give the rail line greater visibility in the area's redevelopment, and enhance security for transit riders who won't be isolated in its current trench. Yes, there's some risk to this, in that it could take 20-30 years for the Central Interchange area to build-out, given the region's sluggish economy. But I also think that, by opening up a big chunk of clean, relatively inexpensive land downtown, it will be hard for developers to ignore it. Add to that the situation with oil supplies, which isn't going to get any better in the future and will probably get worse, not only will downtown development become more attractive, driving will likely become less attractive. I think this is what's called planning. Too bad our MPO uses past trends to "plan" for the future. That's like me watching my rearview mirror to figure out where I should turn next. The only way that works is if I'm going backwards..... KJP "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
September 11, 200519 yr From the 9/9/05 PD: ODOT will assess highway exit closings Campbell worried about downtown businesses Friday, September 09, 2005 Rich Exner Plain Dealer Reporter The Ohio Department of Transportation pledged Thursday to study what impact permanently closing some downtown highway exits in several years will have on local businesses. The closing of the Interstate 90 exchange at Carnegie Avenue and at least some other ramps are part of ODOT's plans to improve safety and reduce congestion in what the agency says is the most accident-prone two-mile stretch of highway in the state. New access roads would be built along the highway. However, the proposed changes have met resistance from Cleveland City Hall and local development groups representing businesses that depend on highway access. http://www.cleveland.com/cuyahoga/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1126258753248010.xml&coll=2 From the 9/10/05 PD: MidTown businesses fear Inner Belt changes Saturday, September 10, 2005 Tom Breckenridge Plain Dealer Reporter MidTown businessmen on Friday bashed the proposal for revamping the Inner Belt, saying the state's proposed closing of exit ramps onto Prospect and Carnegie avenues would bust too many businesses. Business honchos are backed by Mayor Jane Campbell and Council President Frank Jackson. http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/112634490012790.xml&coll=2
September 11, 200519 yr I hate to sound like a broken record, but my proposal could address this problem with continued access to Carnegie/Prospect! KJP "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
October 3, 200519 yr Tomorrow (Oct. 4) at 10 a.m., Senator Voinovich, Mayor Jane Campbell, ODOT Director Gordon Proctor, and Greater Cleveland Partnership CEO Joseph Roman will host a van tour of the Inner Belt bridge. The press release from Voinovich says "Senator Voinovich secured $106.97 million for the reconstruction of the Cleveland Innerbelt and rehabilitation of of the Central Viaduct Birdge as well as $5 million for transportation improvements to the Flats East Bank. The tour will start at the Central Viaduct Bridge (at Sokolowski's University Inn, 1201 University Ave) with a press briefing. After the briefing, the media will board a bus along with Senator Voinovich and drive to the Flats East Bank. At the second site, another press briefing with representatives from the Greater Cleveland Partnership will be held." If anyone wants to show up and tell their elected officials and ODOT's Proctor that they want the Inner Belt redesigned so that it opens up redevelopment opportunities south of Jacobs Field and next to the Cuyahoga River, this is your chance. As a reminder, here is an alternate vision to the one ODOT is espousing, which essentially would rebuild the Inner Belt in its existing alignment. http://members.cox.net/corridorscampaign/Inner%20Belt%20presentation.pdf (707K download) KJP "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
October 13, 200519 yr regarding the new innerbelt central viaduct bridge(s) where does the one bridge alternative (signature bridge) that is suggested here http://www.innerbelt.org/June9Advcommtg.ppt in SLIDE #13 stand in regards to opening up land near the jake and Q?
October 13, 200519 yr It doesn't. In fact, it requires more valuable downtown land than the alternative proposal that Paul Alsenas of the Cuyahoga County Planning Commission and I have posed. We've also proposed a signature bridge, but built slightly south of the existing Innerbelt bridge. See the presentation at for an overview: http://members.cox.net/corridorscampaign/Inner%20Belt%20presentation.pdf (737K) Or the following for more detail on the downtown neighborhood that could be created by realigning the Innerbelt (showing before and after views): http://members.cox.net/corridorscampaign/Inner%20Belt%20Hood1.pdf (385K) KJP "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
October 26, 200519 yr I know this is short notice, but I just received this.... The Cuyahoga County Commissioners are holding a community forum at 11 a.m. tomorrow (Oct. 27) at the commisioners' office, 1219 Ontario Street, downtown Cleveland. The purpose of the forum is to hear ideas and discussion about an iconic bridge for the Inner Belt. The commissioners' press release says: "Paul Alsenas, director of the County Planning Commission, presented the concept to the Planning Commission, which was received with great enthusiasm. Members of the Planning Commission report that this concept is an exciting and dynamic one that would greatly enhance the face of our core city and will define the face and landscape of downtown Cleveland for generations to come." County Commissioners will hear Alsenas' presentation at 11 a.m. tomorrow, and the public is invited to attend. Tomorrow's meeting will preface a public forum Nov. 17, to be held by the Ohio Department of Transportation at a location to be determined. KJP "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
October 26, 200519 yr I thought the iconic bridge was dead ever since they decided to build a new westbound bridge to the north. I was most excited about the opening up of acreage to the south of Carnegie. That is no longer on the table, correct?
October 26, 200519 yr That's what I thought, so I'm not sure what tomorrow's meeting will accomplish. But, we'll see what happens. KJP "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
October 27, 200519 yr It was a very interesting and encouraging meeting. This forum's Mr. X also seemed to like what he heard. The short version is, county planning Director Paul Alsenas and former county commissioner Tim McCormack are out pounding the pavement to drum up support for a realigned Inner Belt that would shrink the Central Interchange, open up nearly 120 acres to core-city development, eliminate the physical barriers between downtown and Quadrangle areas, build a single, iconic bridge over the Cuyahoga Valley and make a statement about how we Clevelanders feel about the future of our fair city. Senator Voinovich was able to secure $105 million in order to build the iconic bridge, and will be in addition to $700 million ODOT already has in hand for the entire Inner Belt reconstruction. Earlier today, the Cuyahoga County Mayors and Managers Association endorsed the proposal and the county commissioners are expected to follow (some very positive comments by commission president Tim Hagan were made). Alsenas noted that developers are very excited about opening up the Central Interchange to redevelopment, availing an area that is equivalent to 10 Public Squares. Next stop is to get the endorsement of Cleveland's mayor and City Council. That's going to be the big one, which ODOT is required to honor. KJP "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
October 27, 200519 yr amazing! will the endorsement of the mayor and city council come after the election, or should we start "pounding" the steps of city hall now???
Create an account or sign in to comment