I like the Rama 8 bridge.  It is really interesting the way that the cable stays go up parallel to each other on the short side, and then fan out on the other.  I don't know if it screams "Cleveland" to me, though. 

 

I also think that instead of invoking flames with a lighted spire, they should have real flames shooting out from public art "stacks" on either side of both entrances to the bridge.  We could call it the "Gates of Hell" bridge.  The exit signs could say "Ontario- next exit", East 9th St.- 1/4 mile", "Abandon Hope, all ye who enter"

^LOL - the Chamber of Commerce would have a heart attack, but that would be extremely funny...

I think that is not such a bad idea...well except for the signs

 

Remember that smokestack that used to emit a blue flame from LTV, and well, it will be over the Cuyahoga and I seem to remember something about fire and the river.........

 

A sculture on the bridge that is a monument to the benefits industry brought to the city, and a memorial to what it cost us!

 

(wow, I am feeling creative)

As long we got our funny bones thinking for us, how about a statue of Mayor Ralph Perk, with his hair on fire, of course!

 

If you look carefully at the bridge in Bratislava (third in my series of "bridges of the world" pics), you can see that it has some form of extra-large cables coming down from the tower (they look a little like coal conveyers at a steel mill). Something like that, coupled with a flame-like light at the top of the tower would have a very unique industrial look to it.

 

KJP

Don't know much about Cleveland, but this looks like a good plan.

Just a reminder that the Inner Belt public meeting will be held Feb. 24, from 4:30-8:30 p.m., with a presentation to be made by ODOT at 6 p.m. It will be held at the Visiting Nurses Association offices, 2500 East 22nd Street. For more information, contact Michelle Proctor, ODOT public affairs, at (216) 584-2005.

 

Please attend and show your support for a new, grand and unique Inner Belt bridge over the Cuyahoga Valley, with a realignment that will open up more than 100 acres acres of downtown and riverfront lands for new development!

 

KJP

 

Thanks! And please don't forget about tomorrow's public meeting.

 

KJP

KJP, it just occurred to me that shortly after the new bridge proposal came out, they moved the meeting date back and then changed the place to the closest venue to where the new neighborhood would be created.  Hmmm?  I think I will do my best to be there after work. 

hey i just got that notice via email and via a postcard mailing--wish i could go.

 

while you guys are talking to them about the bridge do not forget to press them on transit improvements, like why did they drop them from the plan for one thing. also about the university circle highway connector issue.

 

don't let them off the hook on these topics!

 

ps--try to get photos of any renderings or posters they may have if possible.

 

 

 

KJP, will you be there, looks like i can make it........

 

look for me, I'll be the guy in a detroit tigers hat and unshaven

KJP,

 

do you know the ODOT girls that were greeting at the entrance? they were hot, i'm single.....and i drive a car.........we have so much to talk about.....

^How did the meeting go, other than picking up chicks?

Were they selling "The Girls of ODOT" calendars?

Yep, I was there. I recall your baseball cap and unshaven looks. I think I was sitting one row behind you and to your left.

 

The ODOT girls were quite nice looking.

 

X asked a question about the iconic new bridge, realigning the Inner Belt to open up land for development and make a once-in-a-lifetime statement about the future of the city.... ODOT Planner Chris Hebebrand's response? He dodged it, instead talking about the University Circle Access Boulevard, now dubbed the Corridor of Opportunity (who thinks up these dumb-ass names?).

 

Anyway, I guess that's the once-in-a-lifetime statement about the future of the city -- dodge it and rebuild in-place what you already have just to more move cars around faster. Such grand visions for this city! No wonder young people are fleeing...

 

KJP

arrgh. a cool bridge is ok for toledo but noone else??? and just you wait, for another thing odot will fund 1/4 of any future columbus light rail.

 

i've emailed that guy enough of my aggravation with this "innerbelt fiasco of lost opportunities."

 

***i throw up my hands***

 

 

Evidently ODOT is spending money on "hot looking employees" instead of "hot looking infistructure" in Cleveland, as compared to the opposite in the rest of the state (Toledo and Columbus in particular)

Well I don't think that we should give up.  The question are:  Who is with us?  Who could be?  We need a constituency.

 

Two things I noticed about this meeting.

 

1. Chris Hebebrand was trying to deflect my comments.  But I think someone should try to hold him to his word on one thing that he said- that the planning and development community needs to tell them what the potential is for urban development in the Innerbelt area..  I think that alot of Cleveland's intellectual resources were tied into the waterfront plan, but with that mostly settled, the focus needs to be brought to this other major city shaping process.

 

2. Tremont really had the turnout.  That sort of organization and involvement will probably pay off when the final design decisions are made. (they don't want to lose their two interchanges). I would think that there is a constituency of citizens out there that could be educated and involved in this process.

 

BTW, did anyone else catch the part about making a flyover onramp over Carnegie?  I think that's a horrendous idea!  That's a major gateway to downtown.  And they want to put an onramp over it!

 

Just one example of how they not only missed the opportunities that I had been hopeful that they would seize, they are going to do far more damage than I had realized.  A significant number of buildings will be lost to a widened trench, which will make an even bigger obstacle to the Midtown corridor.  A few will be lost to the new and expanded central interchange, and more will be lost in Tremont, which will be more isolated than it is already.

 

I walked out a very unhappy man.

Hey guys, just found this post and am somewhat familiar with the articles, but hadn't heard any updates.  I'm glad that everyone here is thinking so critically and optimistically at the same time about this project.  Who knows if it will ever see the light of day, but the initial commitment to making the right decisions for the long run is there (in the form of millions of public $$$), so why not give every proposal with merit a good look?

 

I think the landmark bridge idea here is great, but I'm more excited about the development potential in the Flats and Gateway.  Despite all the investment that went into the Gateway district after the stadium and arena were built, I think there were definitely impediments on the potential for growth because of the lack of open land for new development.  San Diego has seen a whole new neighborhood grow up out of its stadium district and it looks fantastic.  Of course, we don't have the population growth that San Diego does, but wouldn't this help to drive it??? 

 

I often cite Portland, OR for examples and as there are already pictures from Portland neighborhoods in KJP's first PDF attachment, why not do it again?  Portland had a rail yard north of Downtown and the Pearl District (similar to our Warehouse District, but more expansive) that marked the end of development and cut off the Pearl from the northern banks of the Wilamette River, much like the CSX yard in this proposal.  They also had issues with the alignment of freeway exits, though on a much smaller scale.  A new development group was formed, acquiring the 34-acre rail yard, the State made the alignment changes to the freeway and the developers began a massive $600 million urban redevelopment project with housing, retail and open space, all served buy a new streetcar line.  It has progressed rapidly and looks great! 

 

I see this as a similar opportunity for Cleveland, anchored by Downtown and Gateway with huge potential in transit links, both with the existing light rail, rail expansion, and freeway access.

 

How did the meetings go?  Is it too late for me to write letters?

The meeting was frustration as there was little discussion of this concept. ODOT is officially "open" to the idea (because they have to be until a final design is settled upon), but I suspect they would rather just see this idea go away. I think they're wedded to the idea of having big, looping exits ramps at the Central Interchange to "stack" the traffic. Your example from Portland shows that's not necessary. Geez, build more residential downtown and fewer people will have to drive there -- they would already be there!

 

So, by all means, write a letter, including one to the editors of the PD and Sun Newspapers. And your example from Portland is a good parallel to use. When referring to the alternate plan for the Inner Belt bridge and Central Interchange realignment, note that it is the Cuyahoga County Planning Department that originated the idea and was expanded upon by the Ohio Corridors Campaign.

 

KJP

Could you gather any reason for them being "wedded" to the existing alignment, if not just for price?  Are there political constraints that anyone knows of, or is it a matter of simplicity?

I think that for anything to happen in this town, the right people have to sign on to it.  I know this isn't a good thing, but it is the reality, and it does mean that a strategic approach is required.  I think that individual letters to the editor of the PD are an important piece of that strategy, but it would be better, for instance, to try to get Steve Litt to take an interest because when he says that Cleveland must pay attention to what happens, people will listen.  It is important for people to write an individual letters to ODOT, but I think that finding someone with the clout to bring all the stakeholders together and to get them to agree upon something that is an important opportunity for Cleveland's future is the truely critical part.  Otherwise any alternate points of view will come across as scattered, and therefore ignorable.

Litt has written a column endorsing the general concept, and said he is interested in writing about it again.

 

There are those at ODOT and its consulting firms working on this project who still believe that, if you add enough lanes, looping ramps and other capacity enhancements, that roads can be "de-congested" and make traffic steadily flow at the posted speed limits. I take an opposing view -- that no matter what is done, there will always be traffic congestion. So let's redesign this highway facility to enliven its urban surroundings by opening up land for redevelopment. Less traffic-intensive land use design, not added highway capacity, provides lasting impacts on reducing vehicle-miles traveled.

 

ODOT's reasoning for wanting to keep the Inner Belt on the same alignment and for having the Central Interchange take up the same amount of space is for purposes of traffic flow. It appears that ODOT is concerned about shrinking the land area for the Central Interchange and replacing the looping/cloverleafing eastbound ramps from I-90 to Ontario and East 9th streets into downtown. They apparently believe that if these ramps are shortened and made to exit directly onto Ontario and East 9th without a loop, traffic would back up farther onto the Central Viaduct over the Cuyahoga Valley.

 

Four features of the plan I suggested would address that:

 

1. My direct exit ramps to Ontario and East 9th would be two or three lanes wide, compared with the existing (and ODOT's proposed) one-lane loop ramps;

2. A new, direct access ramp to East 14th/East 18th would be provided to take the pressure off the exits at Ontario and East 9th;

3. New, one-way pairs of 4- to 6-lane wide, parallel streets (Marginal Roads) would be built on each side of the Inner Belt where the Central Interchange now sits, and would further absorb traffic, especially if interactive traffic signals were installed at key intersections; 

4. A massive amount of downtown land would be opened up for new development, including possibly thousands of new residences within walking distance or a short transit ride from workplaces and leisure activities, eliminating the need for many car trips into downtown.

 

Even if a single downtown residence is not built as a result of this plan (unlikely), the features in items #1, #2 and #3 should be able to absorb most weekday commuter traffic in a manner similar to the looping ramps. And, while I do think the market is there for downtown housing, it will take time to build it. So that's another reason for building the ramps in the manner I suggested in items #1 and #2. Admittedly, some traffic will continue to back up onto the Central Viaduct, but the span would be 10 lanes wide as opposed to the current 8-lane configuration. I'd like to see some computer modeling of the traffic data, that takes into the account all of the above, including what the model would show if varying levels of downtown housing where added and what percentages of their residents could be downtown workers based on market data.

 

In my plan, ODOT probably also has concerns about the radius of the curves from I-77 to/from I-90 east. Yes, they would have to be at least as "tight" as they are now, particularly if I-77 is kept on its same general alignment just south of the Inner Belt. The section of I-77 closest to the Central Interchange could be shifted slightly south, abutting Orange Avenue, to flatten the ramps' curves. But, these ramp curves aren't the same as Dead Man's Curve, which is on a through section of an Interstate. Instead, they're at the ending point of an Interstate -- for which the design standard is less. Furthermore, there's so little traffic on Orange and Woodland avenues just south of the Central Interchange that I-77 could even stop just short of downtown and have its traffic come from or empty onto those roads as the traffic leaves or enters downtown, or is I-90-East originating/emanating. The city does this after sporting events, sending outbound traffic on city streets to enter I-77 at East 30th.

 

Granted, I don't expect ODOT to shorten I-77 just south of the Central Interchange, but I do think there is value in using Orange and Woodland avenues to absorb some of I-77's traffic under my proposed configuration, including a pair of new entrance/exit ramps midway between the Central Interchange and East 30th to account for the loss of the higher-capacity ramps linking I-77 and Ontario and East 9th (one existing ramp is a "flyover", from Ontario, and the other is a loop, to East 9th).

 

There is a way to do all this, if ODOT thinks in terms not only of moving vehicles, but of redesigning its infrastructure in a way that respects its surroundings and creates spaces and places that can actually remove vehicles from the highway. What exists now is a rural/suburban interchange design in a urban setting. Every time I travel on city streets through the Central Interchange area, I can't help but see what a massive, blighted wasteland this area is, especially being right next to a major city's downtown. All I can do is to keep suggesting new ways of thinking, so that this Inner Belt project doesn't become an equally massive, wasted opportunity for the community.

 

KJP

Very well spoken, KJP...how can they not listen to you?  Do they want failure?

I don't think they want failure, but I think they have a different bar for success.  And unfortunately, that bar doesn't include redevelopment of downtown Cleveland.  Its all about curve radii and proper ramp spacing and grades.

boooooring!  (i'm being facetious, of course.  I'm sure engineering is a very exciting profession)

 

but doesn't it seem like we can do both?  get our curve radii, our spacing, our grades, and make for better, more functional urban spaces at the same time?  I know, I'm preaching to the choir...

That's the thing.  They need the space that we want for urban development so that they can have those large ramps that give them the radii, grades, and stacking capacity that they want.

Did anyone hear Steve Litt on "Around Noon" on NPR today?  He was on primarily to talk about the Art Museum, but he made sure to mention briefly that he thought that the Inner Belt Bridge reconstruction was the most important thing happening in Cleveland that people aren't talking about, and that it is incredibly important to get a 100 year investment like this right and make sure that we consider all the ramifications for downtown, including development opportunities.  I was very excited to hear it.

I missed it. I hope he puts those thoughts to paper, soon.

 

KJP

was he talking cap too?

He didn't mention the cap idea.  It was just a real quick mention of the Inner Belt.  I also didn't hear most of the show, just the last 5 minutes.  Maybe he talked more about it before that.

URBAN PLANNING

 

A new, well-planned Inner Belt deserves the state's creativity

Sunday, March 20, 2005

Some city-planning ideas are so bad they deserve instant death on the drawing board. Thanks to the Ohio Department of Transportation, Cleveland now has a perfect example...

 

Litt is architecture critic of The Plain Dealer.

 

To reach this Plain Dealer columnist:

 

 

If done well, this project opens up a lot of potential for the city.  If done poorly, it would be another kick in the groin.  I'm a bit nervous.

Steve Litt- the man is a treasure!  I am so glad that he wrote this article. I just wish it was on the front page.  The convention center and casinos put together aren't as important as this, but they get so much more attention.  And I too am nervous, wimwar, because these consultants don't seem to think at all about Cleveland.   It seems to me that to them Cleveland is just an obstruction that has to be razed for their highway expansion.

 

I am glad to hear that the City Planning Commission has declared the Ontario ramp a "non-starter". I really thought that the ramp was a major travesty, but I haven't heard anyone else speak out about it till now. And I hope that the City Planning Department plays a more active role, along with the downtown development corporations, especially Downtown Cleveland Partnership, Gateway, and the Quadrangle (and for that matter, CSU).  It seems that the community groups around downtown have been involved, but only on the small-picture aspect of maintaining their highway ramps.  There's been a sad lack of big-thinking and vision in the official process so far.

You should know that others are starting to get on the bandwagon, and none too soon. I won't name names, but they are people in the kinds of positions to influence needed change. Whether ODOT will listen is another matter, but at least Craig Hebebrand does appear to be listening.

 

I have had some requests for the graphics I included in the Inner Belt presentation I produced earlier this year (the full presentation is available for download at

 

http://members.cox.net/corridorscampaign/Inner%20Belt%20presentation.pdf [737K]).

 

I am making the graphics available here for anyone who wants to have them and hopefully use them to make the case. This project is too important to leave them as proprietary.

 

Also, I will repost my comments on the Inner Belt/Central Interchange realignment. And, I remind readers that if total project costs exceed $700 million, the opened-up land from a redesign of the Central Interchange has a market value of at least $150 million, which ODOT could sell. They already own most of the land for the interchange redesign, as proposed by Paul Alsenas and me.

 

Here are the graphics.....

 

Cleveland CBD today, with the economic "dead zone" just south of downtown (click once on larger pictures and scroll right)....

 

 

1930s....

 

 

1950s....

 

 

1960s....

 

 

Overhead view (per CCPC)....

 

 

Development concept (per Ohio Corridors Campaign)....

 

 

Boston Charles River Bridge for I-95....

 

 

Aomori Bay bridge in Japan....

 

 

Cincinnati Fort Washington Way recessed alignment....

 

 

Cincinnati 'The Banks' neighborhood concept availed by Fort Washington Way project....

 

 

More of 'The Banks' in Cincy....

 

 

Columbus High Street cap over I-670....

 

 

There are those at ODOT and its consulting firms working on this project who still believe that, if you add enough lanes, looping ramps and other capacity enhancements, that roads can be "de-congested" and make traffic steadily flow at the posted speed limits. I take an opposing view -- that no matter what is done, there will always be traffic congestion. So let's redesign this highway facility to enliven its urban surroundings by opening up land for redevelopment. Less traffic-intensive land use design, not added highway capacity, provides lasting impacts on reducing vehicle-miles traveled.

 

ODOT's reasoning for wanting to keep the Inner Belt on the same alignment and for having the Central Interchange take up the same amount of space is for purposes of traffic flow. It appears that ODOT is concerned about shrinking the land area for the Central Interchange and replacing the looping/cloverleafing eastbound ramps from I-90 to Ontario and East 9th streets into downtown. They apparently believe that if these ramps are shortened and made to exit directly onto Ontario and East 9th without a loop, traffic would back up farther onto the Central Viaduct over the Cuyahoga Valley.

 

Four features of the plan I suggested would address that:

 

1. My direct exit ramps to Ontario and East 9th would be two or three lanes wide, compared with the existing (and ODOT's proposed) one-lane loop ramps;

2. A new, direct access ramp to East 14th/East 18th would be provided to take the pressure off the exits at Ontario and East 9th;

3. New, one-way pairs of 4- to 6-lane wide, parallel streets (Marginal Roads) would be built on each side of the Inner Belt where the Central Interchange now sits, and would further absorb traffic, especially if interactive traffic signals were installed at key intersections; 

4. A massive amount of downtown land would be opened up for new development, including possibly thousands of new residences within walking distance or a short transit ride from workplaces and leisure activities, eliminating the need for many car trips into downtown.

 

Even if a single downtown residence is not built as a result of this plan (unlikely), the features in items #1, #2 and #3 should be able to absorb most weekday commuter traffic in a manner similar to the looping ramps. And, while I do think the market is there for downtown housing, it will take time to build it. So that's another reason for building the ramps in the manner I suggested in items #1 and #2. Admittedly, some traffic will continue to back up onto the Central Viaduct, but the span would be 10 lanes wide as opposed to the current 8-lane configuration. I'd like to see some computer modeling of the traffic data, that takes into the account all of the above, including what the model would show if varying levels of downtown housing where added and what percentages of their residents could be downtown workers based on market data.

 

If the University Access Boulevard (aka Corridor of Opportunity) is built, this will take more traffic out of the Central Interchange. But, I have some misgivings about that project, unless it includes putting the Red Line down the median of it as I demonstrated with graphics in another string. But, that's another issue....

 

In my plan, ODOT probably also has concerns about the radius of the curves from I-77 to/from I-90 east. Yes, they would have to be at least as "tight" as they are now, particularly if I-77 is kept on its same general alignment just south of the Inner Belt. The section of I-77 closest to the Central Interchange could be shifted slightly south, abutting Orange Avenue, to flatten the ramps' curves. But, these ramp curves aren't the same as Dead Man's Curve, which is on a through section of an Interstate. Instead, they're at the ending point of an Interstate -- for which the design standard is less. Furthermore, there's so little traffic on Orange and Woodland avenues just south of the Central Interchange that I-77 could even stop just short of downtown and have its traffic come from or empty onto those roads as the traffic leaves or enters downtown, or is I-90-East originating/emanating. The city does this after sporting events, sending outbound traffic on city streets to enter I-77 at East 30th.

 

Granted, I don't expect ODOT to shorten I-77 just south of the Central Interchange, but I do think there is value in using Orange and Woodland avenues to absorb some of I-77's traffic under my proposed configuration, including a pair of new entrance/exit ramps midway between the Central Interchange and East 30th to account for the loss of the higher-capacity ramps linking I-77 and Ontario and East 9th (one existing ramp is a "flyover", from Ontario, and the other is a loop, to East 9th).

 

There is a way to do all this, if ODOT thinks in terms not only of moving vehicles, but of redesigning its infrastructure in a way that respects its surroundings and creates spaces and places that can actually remove vehicles from the highway. What exists now is a rural/suburban interchange design in a urban setting. Every time I travel on city streets through the Central Interchange area, I can't help but see what a massive, blighted wasteland this area is, especially being right next to a major city's downtown. All I can do is to keep suggesting new ways of thinking, so that this Inner Belt project doesn't become an equally massive, wasted opportunity for the community.

 

KJP

 

 

There is so much potential with this.  Let's hope it's outstanding.

 

By the way -- based on stories on Boston's fancy new I-95 bridge, my suggestion is to not build something like that here.  If they have problems with ice falling off the cables there, it would be even worse in Cleveland with all the snow and ice we get.  Think about the Peter B. Lewis building at Case.  They need to close off the sidewalks in the winter due to falling ice.

Have they taken into account the current price of steel?  Steel has been high for over a year, so hopefully they will not scapegoat it when they put up something half-assed.

Sell the old bridge for scrap. Should be worth something. When steel rails from railroad tracks are sold for scrap, I believe the price used to be 10 cents on the dollar. Perhaps with the market higher ODOT could get more for the old bridge.

 

By the way, with the ice on the cables, I wonder if a heating element could be put along the top of them? I'll bet they wouldn't need much more than a wire, like what is placed on a roof just above a gutter. How much might that cost to operate and maintain? Could you imagine what the bridge would look like at night if those heating elements were actually illuminated?

 

And, I was about to say Boston gets about the same amount of snow as Cleveland, but I thought I'd better look it up. According to the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, Cleveland gets 63.3 inches per year while Boston gets 41.3. Yet, Boston's greatest seasonal snowfall was 107.6 inches in 1995-96, whereas Cleveland's was 101.1 in the same year. This season, Boston has gotten 86 inches of snow whereas Cleveland received 95 (so far!).

 

KJP

I'm so glad Cleveland has such thoughtful people watching over it.

 

Don't let down your guard. My hometown just keeps getting better. I wish I could be part of it ...

A new cable bridge would be awesome! Not only that, but as Litt pointed out in the article a lot of land would be opened up for development, and we would not have any traffic tie-ups during construction. The bridge would be an instant landmark, thus making major development on the "new" land almost certain.I really hope this gets done. As far as steel prices go, construction would not start until 2008, so hopefully they would come down. I just think this can be a real catalyst for the city and hopefully it can help Cleveland turn the corner. Hopefully it is not too late, and a new Cleveland landmark can be erected. Does anyone have any educated guesses as to whether or not this will be built.

My uneducated, pessimistic guess is that it won't.  But, I really don't know more than the next guy.  Litt seems to paint a very negative picture, and then throws a bunch of hope at you.  Interesting style. It is probably meant to motivate.

I think Litt is acknowledging that ODOT's basic mission isn't to do these kinds of things, but to keep the traffic flowing. ODOT tends to do more than the basics when pushed by municipalities, since they control the land use. So, at the end of the day, this really isn't about ODOT at all. Rather, it's about the folks at 601 Lakeside Avenue.

 

KJP

An update in the March 20th PD by architecture critic Steven Litt that is characterized by the following quote:

 

So far, the ideas considered seriously by ODOT for the project have been uninspired. The agency's primary goal seems to be to push highway traffic through the city, not to strengthen Cleveland economically and make it a better place to live.

 

check it out at http://www.cleveland.com/artsandevents/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/entertainment/1111228291177590.xml

^ Which was posted at:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=2738.msg26153#msg26153

 

KJP

It's now at the top of this thread.

Fingers and toes are crossed.....

 

http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/transportation/2005_04_01_archive.html

 

4/13/2005

ODOT studying a new Innerbelt Bridge

 

Consultants for the Ohio Department of Transportation are studying ways to build an entirely new Innerbelt bridge as part of its massive Innerbelt reconstruction project.

 

At a project meeting in February, the ODOT consultants dismissed the idea, saying that a new span couldn't be built without taking down Tremont's iconic Greek Orthodox church (a political non-starter). But community groups and County officials pressed for a more detailed study, citing a wide variety of concerns about ODOT's desire to add additional traffic lanes to the existing bridge.

 

Consultants are now privately showing an engineering diagram that shifts the bridge slightly to the south, and reconfigures ramps to create new development opportunities south of Jacobs Field. We're told that the design would also drop the road deck of the bridge significantly, improving views across the valley from both Tremont and downtown, and helping to improve street networks in the Gateway and Quadrangle districts.

 

As we reported in January, proponents of a new Innerbelt bridge have called for world-class architectural design. Just as importantly, they've urged ODOT to realign the bridge and highway south toward the river bluff, which would create enormous development opportunities near the $1.5 billion Gateway complex.

 

To that end, KSU's Urban Design Center, Cleveland Public Art and EcoCity Cleveland are considering a "Gateway Challenge" design competition similar to last year's successful Lakefront Challenge, seeking development visions for 30-50 acres just south of Carnegie Avenue. The competition would help raise community awareness about the land's potential, and also encourage ODOT to take a closer look at realignment possibilities.

 

 

 

For more information, visit....

 

http://members.cox.net/corridorscampaign/Inner%20Belt%20presentation.pdf

 

http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/transportation/2005/01/thinking-big-for-new-innerbelt-bridge.html

 

 

One question on the dream scenario:

 

I read somewhere that the new bridge would be lower than the old one.  Would the highway be sunk as intersects with Prospect/Broadway?

My thought was that it would be below Broadway/Ontario, East 9th and East 14th/18th area. That would create less of a barrier between downtown and the Quadrangle area, especially if the highway's ramps "hugged" the highway and weren't designed like some suburban or rural interchange. The Inner Belt already goes under Prospect.

 

KJP

Wow, it's great to hear this positive development.  Althought I feel that it is pretty obvious where Litt stands on the subject, he still reports some facts amidst his somewhat sarcastic comments on how this is a "no brainer."  And those facts are important to moving this forward in the right direction.  I'm ecstatic to see this and I look forward to seeing the preliminary design concepts and the moves that will be necessary to make it happen!

So, we should know in the fall.  Geez, we have had so many decisions pushed back. County headquarters, convention center. i am sure they are pushed back in order to gather more info, which is fine. But, I wanna know..

 

Also, I am pretty nervous about the governmental decisions coming in the next month. They could be a big blow to Cleveland.

Getting back to the bridge..

 

I am more excited about the new allignment than I am about a new design. I am really not that enthralled by some of the new bridge designs.  The Boston bridge looks quite ugly to me (but then again, ugly is the new pretty).  But, it would give Tremonters another beautiful view if designed well.  We shall see. Good to read that things are looking better..