1 hour ago, marty15 said:

Can’t see why this triangle can’t work. They can still call it a pick if they want. 

 

bEcAuSe tHe ArT iS iN thE cOnTroVeRSy

36 minutes ago, ASP1984 said:

 

bEcAuSe tHe ArT iS iN thE cOnTroVeRSy

I’m just blown away that this is acceptable. 50 years from now they’ll be tearing that trash down wondering what we were thinking. 

And yet from most on this great forum ...to quote a rock classic: “The Sound of Silence”

Edited December 20, 20204 yr by CleveFan

https://www.shoparc.com/projects/rock-roll-hall-of-fame/

 

here is another firm's submission

I guess this puts me in the minority, but I like it. I think the stark black triangle is a a simple enough geometry to complement the existing geometric design, but also doesn't pretend to be part of it. I also think the black coloring works well and plays off the existing transparency and white shades. To me it looks cohesive without pretending it was all there from the start. 

 

Lastly, I've never really bought into the idea that the existing building is a record player. The plaza, maybe, but that's really it. I don't think it's a great shame to lose something you could only experience if you were using Google maps and you squinted a bit. 

 

 

8 hours ago, dave2017 said:

https://www.shoparc.com/projects/rock-roll-hall-of-fame/

 

here is another firm's submission

Love this design and so much more complimentary to the existing structure.

 

The accepted proposal may be more acceptable if it at least used glass as the building material,  consistent with the existing RRHF building.

Edited December 20, 20204 yr by Frmr CLEder

That ones much better. FWIW, I received a very nice note back from Vishan Chakrabarti after sending him a note on Linked In as per @ASP1984’s suggestion. I found that very professional, particularly after a fairly blunt criticism of the design.  And though I am just one random opinion - interestingly, he included in his note, “there a lot of complicated issues”.  Perhaps if the concerns expressed on the forum are shared by others in sufficienct number and influence, who knows?- there might be further review of the expansion design. 

That looks a little better, but wouldn't it impede a potential land bridge across the shoreway?

2 hours ago, skiwest said:

That looks a little better, but wouldn't it impede a potential land bridge across the shoreway?

Maybe incorporating the land bridge into the design would be an idea. Use a green roof to take the land bridge right to the water.

infill housing around e 85th and chester going up....

^Lakefront? 

oops...!!

Can we get a separate thread for the Rock Hall expansion? With the $100 million price tag and design controversy I’m thinking it’s a big enough and important enough project for a dedicated thread. 

Cleveland Commercial Group a commercial real estate broker who handled 75 PS sale among others, lists these two projects on their page:

 

On 5/15/2019 at 4:35 PM, KJP said:

 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 2019

Gordon Park lakefront housing - the sequel

 

The Gordon Park area on the East Side isn't to be confused with the Gordon Square area on the West Side. Gordon Square is a populous, fast-growing, historic neighborhood. But the lakefront lands along and near Gordon Park could soon add "fast-growing" to its descriptions too, as first reported in a February NEOtrans article.

Now, there's more happening -- a 212-unit, five-story apartment building called The Shoreline Phase II is proposed to be built at 5455 North Marginal Road, according to documents filed with the Cleveland Planning Commission. The four-acre site is on the northwest quadrant of the Interstate 90-East 55th Street interchange. It is located next to the 167-unit The Shoreline apartment building, currently the only housing in the Gordon Park area.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blogspot.com/2019/05/gordon-park-lakefront-housing-sequel.html

 

Has there been any recent movement on these two locations?

 

Quick fun fact, 8/1/2019, the site mentions mid-rise developments in Cleveland and the article link is to one of @KJP's articles!

Both projects are on hold for the foreseeable future. They're hoping to get back on track when downtown employees return.

 

Great to see a county wide vision is being developed - hard to believe that it’s just being developed recently. Themes of the plan, as published, are public engagement and interactivity with the lakefront.  Included in the area is the stretch of lakefront we know as Burke Airport. I wonder how open county planning really is to an open discussion of the purposing of this area.  If interactivity with the lake is truly a central goal, I’d love to hear the thinking of the county and of the city’s residents. 

https://www.countyplanning.us/projects/cuyahoga-county-lakefront-public-access-plan/

 

This is looking like a bad plan if you like sand and beaches and swimming in the lake. I fear the misguided erosion-control sins of the past are just being repackaged on a grander scale. 

Several entities are participating in a study of the eastern lakefront, from roughly E. 40th through MLK Blvd.: 

 

• ODOT (interests are reduced wave action on I-90 and possible removal of old CEI power plant bridges)

• Port Authority

• Cleveland Metroparks

• City of Cleveland

• ODNR

 

 

The Study team is starting to look at possible future project concepts.  There is a community meeting on Tuesday night, Feb. 2nd at 7 p.m. The following link has information on the concepts and a survey you can fill out to provide your feedback ...

 

https://www.clevelandmetroparks.com/about/cleveland-metroparks-organization/planning/cleveland-harbor-eastern-embayment-resilience-stud

My comment on the survey: 

You don't need to build more land with dredging . The real focus of this should be to hug the freeway as close to the train tracks as possible from e55 through MLK and get rid of the huge exit ramps. This will create a substantial land mass north of I-90 and make the fishing/recreation more peaceful. Then use the freed up gordon park space for better use than baseball fields. Finally, I think the area north of St Clair (From E72nd to MLK) should also be turned into park-space. This would make the overall lakefront park more accessible to hough and glenville residents and really incorporate Rockefeller park as a part of the overall project. Recreation buildings like indoor basketball, indoor tracks, indoor pools and ice rinks could be built in this section to create a true recreational district for the east side.

I thought some of the proposals, specifically Connect with Nature and the small beaches were great.

 

I assume with the Port involved they are looking for ways to beneficially dispose of dredged material and avoid any open lake dumping controversy from years past. 

I wanted to vote for “all of the above” in the survey because of the multiple opportunities & ways to interact with the lakefront. Despite  weather challenges typical from late October through early April - pathways for walking and biking make sense as they will still be frequently utilized. But having a beachfront area, a version of a Santa Monica pier or a hillside vista near the water - all sound fantastic. Other presented ideas such as an accessible island, better connections to residential and new spaces for water-based sporting activities - all good. 
 

The Pandemic did at least one positive thing - it brought a renewed emphasis on enjoying outdoor experiences- perhaps more than ever - particularly  for those living in urban situations. 
 

Creatively maximizing  the accessibility of such a great resource as the lakefront -  in an accelerated time frame - should be a high priority for Cleveland. If not now, then how many more years  must we wait? 

A bit more on the meeting tonight ...
 

You are invited to attend the first Public Meeting of the Cuyahoga County Lakefront Public Access Plan! Announced by County Executive Armond Budish during his State of the County address in 2019, this plan aims to improve transportation networks to increase public access to Lake Erie in concert with shoreline stabilization efforts. We are just at the beginning of this public engagement process and want to share information and gather feedback from residents, business owners, and lakefront stakeholders like you!

 

Lakefront Public Access Plan Virtual Public Meeting

When: Thursday, January 28, 2021, 7:00 p.m.

Where: Virtual Meeting, accessed at: www.countyplanning.us/lakefront

 

This plan is a collaboration among County departments with an experienced consulting team led by SmithGroup. We are excited to share initial findings, learn more about your hopes for the lakefront, and answer your questions about this process. Please learn more on our website, send us an email, and attend the meeting. See you then!

I'll be interested to see if the wealthy lakefront homeowners from Edgewater on west through the burbs show up to oppose this.   On one hand they could gain free break walls and erosion protection, but they will also have the commoners rollerblading through their backyards.  

Considering from Edgewater on West, theres 20-40 ft cliffs separating yards from a shoreline level boardwalk, if the board walk was maintained along the lake level shoreline, they would be foolish to not sign on, privacy would most likely still be maintained.

A lot of those people have private docks.  I would expect a fierce fight from them.  And they have lots of resources to fight with.

2 hours ago, X said:

A lot of those people have private docks.  I would expect a fierce fight from them.  And they have lots of resources to fight with.

 

There are not very many private docks on those bluffs.  No boats would survive.  

Just looked at Google Earth- you're right there aren't many in the stretch from Edgewater through Lakewood.  From the Rocky River going west there are lots of them.  The bluffs must be lower starting at the river.

My parents had a home on the lake in the 1970s.  They spent tens of thousands on erosion control measures which cost $$$ to maintain.  After major storms the talk in the neighborhood was "how much land did you lose."  I think that some owners will be happy to let the state maintain the shoreline - provided that their access , privacy, and view is preserved.

That was the case in Euclid. They were happy to have erosion control measures in exchange for lakefront public access. 

1 hour ago, TR said:

My parents had a home on the lake in the 1970s.  They spent tens of thousands on erosion control measures which cost $$$ to maintain.  After major storms the talk in the neighborhood was "how much land did you lose."  I think that some owners will be happy to let the state maintain the shoreline - provided that their access , privacy, and view is preserved.

 

I'm sure- they're going to want all the benefits of their private lake access along with all the protections of the state maintaining the shoreline!

1 hour ago, KJP said:

That was the case in Euclid. They were happy to have erosion control measures in exchange for lakefront public access. 

The only difference heading west is there are some MEGA estates.   One on Harborview in Cleveland recently sold for $5 million plus.   I'm sure Bratenhal would have a similar pushback. 

9 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

The only difference heading west is there are some MEGA estates.   One on Harborview in Cleveland recently sold for $5 million plus.   I'm sure Bratenhal would have a similar pushback. 

 

The upside for the erosion control/trail is that it's at the bottom of a cliff which hinders access to the homes above the cliff. But I can see the owners of estates that have steps down to the lake might have some concerns. But I see only five or six of them between Edgewater Park and Lakewood Park. If those five or six property owners want to hold as hostage this lakefront trail (as well block getting free erosion control), I think the community as a whole will push back.

I'm posting this here since Amtrak's station (and any likely multimodal station) would be on the lakefront. Assuming Amtrak returns the existing nighttime train service to daily soon, Amtrak is proposing to serve Cleveland with 22 trains a day. Discuss the multimodal station here. Discuss the proposed train services there:

 

 

Just now, KJP said:

This really belongs here, not in the Amtrak thread.......

 

 

 

 

 

 

The new NorthCoast Harbor restaurants are coming along! As a refresher, these are going in several of the ground level retail spaces of Harbor Verandas. Cute for Coffee will offer coffee, ice cream & other treats, while Sandrine will be a cool bar/lounge/kitchen with a large patio. 
 

https://m.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2020/07/15/two-concepts-a-cafe-and-bar-lounge-kitchen-to-open-on-ground-floor-of-harbor-verandas-by-rock-hall

 

Also, while I remember that article from before, I don’t remember these renderings.

 

The first is Cute for Coffee, and the second is Sandrine.

Can’t wait for summer and to enjoy these!

 

I hope they survive in this covid world we live in.

I hope these places are packed as soon as this summer (assuming post-vaccine normalcy).  They deserve to be - just  for their location - which will flaunt  a Cleveland view to make land locked cities envious. 

 

 

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2021

Cleveland's lakefront may get boost from new stadium, trains, ships

 

Lots of pieces are coming into place that could greatly impact downtown Cleveland's lakefront in a very positive way. There are many challenges to be sure, but it seems that the planets are aligning for good things to happen.

 

These good things center on three basic ingredients -- trains/transit, shipping and development.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blogspot.com/2021/02/clevelands-lakefront-may-get-boost-from.html

I vote for a new stadium at another location.

Keep it on the lake with a retractable roof.  Keep it close to the Flats, the Warehouse District, the Convention Center and the Waterfront Line!

 

Exactly,  The only way it works is a dome on the existing stadium.  You can "connect" it to the existing convention center and Hotels and other infrastructure are already in place.   A dome on the south side of the innerbelt just doesn't tie in  

Retrofitting a retractable dome on FES would be costly and probably quite ugly.  A new stadium on the south side makes perfect sense.  It would tie in with the existing sports venues and the associated parking facilities.  

 

Edited February 1, 20214 yr by skiwest

Ok, Building a new Dome would be ridiculously costly also.  So if we are going to spend money, spend it where it logistically makes sense.  But I'm also in the camp of "the stadium is fine"  

19 minutes ago, mack34 said:

 But I'm also in the camp of "the stadium is fine"  

 

Generally, I agree.  But I also know that an open-air stadium takes a lot of abuse from the weather and almost certainly costs more to maintain.  Not to mention isn't used much in the winter months.  A closeable stadium would be more useful, and hopefully more durable. 

 

And the city and county should not be funding this -- let the billionaire owners' club fund their stadiums.

 

4 hours ago, Foraker said:

 

And the city and county should not be funding this -- let the billionaire owners' club fund their stadiums.

 

 

Agreed - that's why I was pleasantly surprised to read that the Haslam's are looking at using development around the existing stadium to fund a replacement/upgrade. For a sports stadium, that's some real forward thinking. If everything goes well with that, Cleveland could be a model for future stadiums throughout the country.

13 hours ago, KJP said:

 

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2021

Cleveland's lakefront may get boost from new stadium, trains, ships

 

Lots of pieces are coming into place that could greatly impact downtown Cleveland's lakefront in a very positive way. There are many challenges to be sure, but it seems that the planets are aligning for good things to happen.

 

These good things center on three basic ingredients -- trains/transit, shipping and development.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blogspot.com/2021/02/clevelands-lakefront-may-get-boost-from.html

Fantastic and exciting article - the usual thanks to @KJP.  We don’t often get such a long view of development possibilities and a look into the possible future. It’s important to think generations ahead so that Cleveland does not get left behind as the decades pass into the 2nd half of the 21st Century. 
 

The transformation from industrial center to medical Mecca is underway and the cities importance not only as a connecting hub between northern and Midwestern cities - but as a worldwide destination for shipping - is not only exciting speculatively - but inherently vital in our planning. Our city will not prosper without cooperative investment  in infrastructure that can facilitate the possibilities outlined in the article.

 

in that spirit, I suggest that the next stadium must be domed or retractable - we must expand the usage of such a resource and create the possibility of a Super Bowl (and other mega events) occurring in this city. The economic dollars possible by the creation of a new lakefront neighborhood with a public promenade are too compelling not to pursue. 

5 hours ago, skiwest said:

Retrofitting a retractable dome on FES would be costly and probably quite ugly.  A new stadium on the south side makes perfect sense.  It would tie in with the existing sports venues and the associated parking facilities.  

 

 

Have you seen the original roof proposal? I thought it actually looked pretty cool. 

 

[edit] here....

Edited February 1, 20214 yr by surfohio

Yes, I saw it.  Was there a cost estimate for that?   And what's the deal with all the greenery surrounding it?

Great video regarding the retractable roof option

https://www.usatoday.com/videos/sports/2012/09/21/1586079/

 

This proposal would have cost between $70 million to $90 million dollars.    I also like the bridge from Mall C to whatever was proposed at the edge of Lake Erie.  

Edited February 1, 20214 yr by dave2017