8 minutes ago, Pugu said:

Why did the deal with Pace / Cumberland fall through--wasn't it a done deal?

I thought it had something to do with the Haslams new stadium plans.

1 hour ago, Pugu said:

Why did the deal with Pace / Cumberland fall through--wasn't it a done deal?

 

14 hours ago, skiwest said:

And here is another article:

 

https://www.news5cleveland.com/sports/2021-nfl-draft/whats-next-for-clevelands-north-coast-harbor-now-that-the-nfl-draft-is-over

 

 

Pace had a hand in the development of Nuevo Modern Mexican & Tequila Bar and Harbor Verandas along the late, and also had the development rights to the 20 acres of property north of FirstEnergy Stadium and was preparing to break ground last year. However, he says, that’s when the mayor had a change of heart.

 

"All that was necessary was a building permit," Pace claimed. "We had the financing, we had the tenants and we were ready to go. It's sad. There's no reason for it to be on hold, other than the mayor doesn't want it to happen right now."

 

Mayor Frank G. Jackson's office didn't respond for comment today, but City Council President Kevin Kelley (himself a candidate for mayor) says the city doesn’t want to rush through the development of one parcel of the land. Instead, they want a master plan for the whole area.

33 minutes ago, surfohio said:

"All that was necessary was a building permit," Pace claimed. "We had the financing, we had the tenants and we were ready to go. It's sad. There's no reason for it to be on hold, other than the mayor doesn't want it to happen right now."

 

 

If it all really went down like that, that's really sad. Pace's plan's work in the works for a long time and Jackson, if he was awake, should have been well aware of them, well before simply denying a permit to begin work.  It's fine to start with some existing structures in the lakefront plan---its not like we're going to bulldoze Browns stadium and rock hall and THEN begin to create a master plan. Sounds like a some very shady excuse. Maybe Pace pissed someone off? Maybe someone more connected or a family member with Jackon's ear wants the development rights instead?

Or maybe the future of Cleveland Browns Stadium at that location is in doubt.  A development north of CBS wouldn't incorporate well if CBS isn't there.  Would completely have to be re-imagined.

I keep hearing low rumblings that FES is not going to stay on the lakefront.

11 minutes ago, KJP said:

I keep hearing low rumblings that FES is not going to stay on the lakefront.

Any rumblings on proposed relocation sites?

1 minute ago, Luke_S said:

Any rumblings on proposed relocation sites?

Baltimore 😬

1 minute ago, GISguy said:

Baltimore 😬

I think the answer to these type of questions now is “Atlanta”. 

15 minutes ago, KJP said:

I keep hearing low rumblings that FES is not going to stay on the lakefront.

Would that also mean that the Haslam's are no longer interested in developing that land around FES?

7 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

Any rumblings on proposed relocation sites?

 

Former NS intermodal yards site -- the site everyone except Mike White wanted it to be built in the first place in the late 1990s.

 

3 minutes ago, 3231 said:

Would that also mean that the Haslam's are no longer interested in developing that land around FES?

 

That's why the rumor about FES not staying on lakefront is confusing. In their press conference last week, it certainly sounded like the Haslams were not involved in any kind of planning regarding lakefront development.

Why do I have the feeling that the stadium could become the next Burke, meaning that the mystery and question of its future existence will simply delay development for another generation or so? 

Sleepy Frank has been talking about the lakefront since he took office.  Just about nothing has been done except for this ridiculous bridge to nowhere.  November can't come soon enough, not to say the next one will be better, but then again, can't get any worse!

43 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

Former NS intermodal yards site

Where is this located?

Mike and I have something in common.  I hate the NS site.

^What's to hate?  Well served by high capacity transit, close to downtown hotels, yet far enough from the action so it isn't a black hole for 350 days a year seems perfect, no?

Just now, StapHanger said:

^What's to hate?  Well served by high capacity transit, close to downtown hotels, yet far enough from the action so it isn't a black hole for 350 days a year seems perfect, no?

And with a retractable dome, it could be utilized more than a dozen times per year.

Maybe sounds over-dramatic, but unless we remove the stadium and the segment of shoreway between West 3rd and East 9th, I don't think the downtown lakefront can ever be particularly nice for fun. Without those changes, spending enormous money on a land bridge or whatever just seems like throwing good money after bad. Isolated Special Event Zone with a couple hundred housing units just isn't a very compelling development pattern. 

Edited May 5, 20214 yr by StapHanger

8 minutes ago, StapHanger said:

^What's to hate?  Well served by high capacity transit, close to downtown hotels, yet far enough from the action so it isn't a black hole for 350 days a year seems perfect, no?

I envision a huge white elephant on the wrong side of the free way bordering one of the most unattractive sections of the industrial valley.  It will be surrounded by surface lots and parking garages only serving the stadium.  Even if they promise companion development projects, this is Cleveland not LA.  It will take years and also take away development resources from the lakefront, flats, central business district and midtown which all have tons of land which need to be developed.  Not looking forward to the Goodyear blimp shots.  They won't be attractive.

Edited May 5, 20214 yr by Htsguy

^I agree with 99% of your takes but I think you're way off here.  Football stadiums are enormous disamenities in cities. Lightly used, huge peak parking/traffic demand and noise.  That white elephant surrounded by parking is pretty much an inevitability and is exactly why it should be tucked on the wrong side of the tracks.  We should just forget about companion development with a football stadium and let it be its own thing.  The development energy on the lake will come from people wanting to live by or visit the lake, not a hulking empty building. 

Edited May 5, 20214 yr by StapHanger

36 minutes ago, Sapper Daddy said:

Where is this located?

https://media.cleveland.com/naymik/photo/14wgmodelljpg-ce40e722ff9c6427.jpg

Edited May 5, 20214 yr by dastler

17 minutes ago, StapHanger said:

Maybe sounds over-dramatic, but unless we remove the stadium and the segment of shoreway between West 3rd and East 9th, I don't think the downtown lakefront can ever be particularly nice for fun. Without those changes, spending enormous money on a land bridge or whatever just seems like throwing good money after bad. Isolated Special Event Zone with a couple hundred housing units just isn't a very compelling development pattern. 

I totally agree.  That is why we need to know what is happening with the stadium and the shoreway before proceeding with any lakefront development.   

 

Edited May 5, 20214 yr by skiwest

16 minutes ago, dastler said:

https://media.cleveland.com/naymik/photo/14wgmodelljpg-ce40e722ff9c6427.jpg

 

Not sure when Naymik had this graphic but that imagery is ooooold. Here's his shape on current aerial imagery. I'd imagine they could bump it up all the way to 90.

 

The only reason why Mike White wanted Browns stadium on the lakefront is because all of the supportive infrastructure and utilities were already there. He wasn't willing to add a year and millions to the cost of the new stadium by putting it at the NS Intermodal Yards. He wanted the Browns to return in 1999, not 2000, which he considered a bigger psychological loss. And I think he was worried about risking the NFL's financial contribution to the new stadium, justified or not.

 

Consider the potential differences.....

 

 

The proximity to the other stadiums is a major draw, what other cities have 3 major sports team in such close proximity? What's the pedestrian access to the area though? It looks a bit challenging to get there on foot from the gateway area... Coming by car I'm sure there would be plenty of parking included so no issue there. There doesn't seem to be a lot of space for spinoff development either. Based on KJP's graphic RTA access is good at least.

 

edit:

You could actually just walk down Ontario and cross 90 underneath. Coming from the East there isn't really anything currently but maybe you could build some spinoff development in that otherwise wasted green space across Ontario.

Edited May 5, 20214 yr by dastler

^I understand the temptation, but I really think you need to think about a football stadium first and foremost as, like, a county fairgrounds or something.  It's proximity to anything is not especially important.  A vast majority of people will arrive to the area by car no matter where you put it. (If we're smart we can get some to come instead by transit, but either way, not a huge number will be walking from home). It's going to be empty almost all of the time. There isn't going to be any easily identifiable spin-off development.

2 minutes ago, StapHanger said:

^I understand the temptation, but I really think you need to think about a football stadium first and foremost as, like, a county fairgrounds or something.  It's proximity to anything is not especially important.  A vast majority of people will arrive to the area by car no matter where you put it. (If we're smart we can get some to come instead by transit, but either way, not a huge number will be walking from home). It's going to be empty almost all of the time. There isn't going to be any easily identifiable spin-off development.

 

All the more reason to get it off the lakefront. It would look very nice to out-of-state motorists passing by it on the Inner Belt.....

 

By the way, my lakefront graphic above would look even more amazing with the land bridge and if the Shoreway was turned into an at-grade boulevard with an intersection at West 3rd.

@KJP if the stadium were built on this site, do you think the Rapid would be out of commission for an extended period of time during construction?

26 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

All the more reason to get it off the lakefront. It would look very nice to out-of-state motorists passing by it on the Inner Belt.....

 

By the way, my lakefront graphic above would look even more amazing with the land bridge and if the Shoreway was turned into an at-grade boulevard with an intersection at West 3rd.

 

If the stadium cannot or will not be integrated with the convention center or secure more usage, I wholeheartedly agree. 

 

I do sincerely hope the talk of moving the stadium doesn't hurt the land bridge momentum. Now the Shoreway Blvd. conversion just makes so much sense and it's kinda sad that, like the bridge, it's a great idea that has languished for so long. 

 

Anyhow I don't wanna see the Cleveland Browns become an "indoor team" unless the gameday weather is just absolutely horrific. But a retractable roof venue would be a game changing asset for the region. 

Edited May 5, 20214 yr by surfohio

The fact that there’s been no move forward on development north of FES suggests that there is real “talk” by the powers-that-be about the future location of the stadium.  
 

The failure of Cleveland leadership to develop and implement a plan for the downtown lakefront over the last half-century is beyond negligence. Having said that, I really think there’s a system-wide realization about what lakefront development can do to elevate Cleveland beyond competitive cities in the Midwest.  
 

The city needs to bring  all stakeholders together, finally develop a consensus plan and move things beyond endless planning stages - which has been a kick the can down the road avoidance game.  
 

Why not have two world-class attractions instead of one?  As @StapHangersaid, the stadium will fill up 10-12 times a year irrespective of its location. The lakefront, obviously is its own powerful draw. One is currently inhibiting the other.  Move the stadium -solve the shore way problem and connect  the city to the waterfront.  Then, let’s watch Cleveland become its greatest version yet! 

From the News5 story "the city hoping to learn from ODOT about that initial land bridge funding in June."   Are they referring to June 2021 or June 2022?  Is the city hoping to learn that funding is feasible? approved?  part of some budget approval process? I had no idea that the Land Bridge was anything beyond a wild dream.  

17 minutes ago, surfohio said:

 

If the stadium cannot or will not be integrated with the convention center or secure more usage, I wholeheartedly agree. 

It seems like integrating the current stadium with the convention center would be a challenge since they are separated by rail lines and the shoreway.

 

17 minutes ago, surfohio said:

Anyhow I don't wanna see the Cleveland Browns become an "indoor team" unless the gameday weather is just absolutely horrific. But a retractable roof venue would be a game changing asset for the region. 

Agreed.  Unfortunately, the NFL regular season is now extending into January.  Cleveland weather in December and January can be brutal.  A retractable roof is definitely the way to go.

 

Edited May 5, 20214 yr by skiwest

15 minutes ago, CleveFan said:

 

The failure of Cleveland leadership to develop and implement a plan for the downtown lakefront over the last half-century is beyond negligence. Having said that, I really think there’s a system-wide realization about what lakefront development can do to elevate Cleveland beyond competitive cities in the Midwest. 

 

It's absolutely uncanny how the hapless Browns 2.0 has mirrored hapless lakefront development haha. But the Browns are good now, so.....

 

16 minutes ago, CleveFan said:

The city needs to bring  all stakeholders together, finally develop a consensus plan and move things beyond endless planning stages - which has been a kick the can down the road avoidance game.  

 

Exactly. Has the city shown the ability to accomplish this necessary level of coordination? I'm holding out hope that at least the Rock Hall and Science Center can better integrate with their surroundings. It's not a district as much as a highway exit ramp. 

 

 

That little harbor bridge is so ugly, so ungainly we would have been better off if nothing had been built there. What a joke. 

 

In the grand scheme of things l suppose l shouldn't get too upset. It is a rather small project after all, ugly as it may be. But l would like to know the back story. How exactly did what was supposed to be an elegant bridge turn into such an ugly duckling?

 

I suppose you start with the primary reason (money) and then stir in the usual incompetent goverment beurocrat's, add a third rate architectural design. And finally we have to include the element that every Cleveland development MUST have...an excessive amount of delay. Mix them all together and we come up with that little tumor. Well done people. Well done.

20 minutes ago, skiwest said:

It seems like integrating the current stadium with the convention center would be a challenge since they are separated by rail lines and the shoreway.

 

 

27 minutes ago, cadmen said:

That little harbor bridge is so ugly, so ungainly we would have been better off if nothing had been built there. What a joke. 

 

You can walk across an "ugly" bridge just as well as a pretty one. 

Edited May 5, 20214 yr by Ethan

^ so much for design and aesthetics.

 

Building out the lakefront for apartments/offices would be alright, but i think this would be a good opportunity to leverage the science center and rock hall and turn it into an interactive section of the city. a big lakeside park with family friendly/event space.  Maybe build a good aquarium, an outdoor concert/event space, maybe some navy-pier type stuff like a ferris wheel, some restaurants, public sculptures, etc. may seem silly, but the NFL draft kinda exposed how we don't have anything like that, and it was really fun.

1 hour ago, ryanfrazier said:

@KJP if the stadium were built on this site, do you think the Rapid would be out of commission for an extended period of time during construction?

 

I'll respond at the First Energy Stadium thread since my reply might start a discussion that will take this thread off topic.... 🙂

14 hours ago, Cleburger said:

Current status of harbor bridge :  

 

I may be in the minority here, but I like this little bridge.  Do I wish the $16 million went to something else, such as the land bridge over the shoreway?  Yes.  But, ultimately this is a cool piece of pedestrian infrastructure.  Several organizations use Voinovich park for after-work events such as kick-ball and volleyball, among others.  This bridge opens up the Science Center garage to the park and allows for a nice loop around the inner harbor.  In the future this will connect whatever is built around/in place of FirstEnergy Stadium with the park and Nuevo without having to walk under/around the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.  

 

I don't mind the steel color, but do we know whether it will be painted?  I have only seen renders that are white.  

22 minutes ago, Whipjacka said:

Maybe build a good aquarium, an outdoor concert/event space, maybe some navy-pier type stuff like a ferris wheel, some restaurants, public sculptures, etc. may seem silly, but the NFL draft kinda exposed how we don't have anything like that, and it was really fun.

 

We simply don't have that "it" place where EVERYONE goes. In virtually every waterfront small town or big city...it's the waterfront. We are an outlier. We got some of the pieces of the puzzle, but other pieces are missing....and the table top is still kinda broken. 

Edited May 5, 20214 yr by surfohio
bad english

5 minutes ago, surfohio said:

 

We simply don't have that "it" place where EVERYONE goes. In virtually every waterfront small town or big city...it's the waterfront. We are an outlier. We got some of the pieces of the puzzle, but other pieces are missing....and the table top is still kinda broken. 

 

Public Square?

There's probably better sites for the stadium than the lakefront, but it's already there and only 22 years old.  I can't imagine hundreds of millions being spent to start all over.  I think rebuilding it would be a huge waste.  The location isn't THAT bad and those hundreds of millions could be used on so many things that would do more for Cleveland.

1 hour ago, Whipjacka said:

^ so much for design and aesthetics.

 

Building out the lakefront for apartments/offices would be alright, but i think this would be a good opportunity to leverage the science center and rock hall and turn it into an interactive section of the city. a big lakeside park with family friendly/event space.  Maybe build a good aquarium, an outdoor concert/event space, maybe some navy-pier type stuff like a ferris wheel, some restaurants, public sculptures, etc. may seem silly, but the NFL draft kinda exposed how we don't have anything like that, and it was really fun.

 

 

I would love this so much, make it more of a destination then a neighborhood per say..  A real Aquarium would do wonders as well there.  A superman statue or maybe a museum of a historic Cleveland figure..  So many things we can do to persuade more people to visit the city. 

2 hours ago, KJP said:

 

Public Square?

 

Not exactly, I'm talking more like the boardwalks in Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, New Jersey, the piers and attractions in Santa Cruz, San Diego and San Francisco California, Navy Pier in Chicago.

 

Or Euclid Beach Park :-( 

 

Like this is where I grew up. Cleveland needs places like this:

 

 

With the stadium gone, there are so many possibilities for that area.  A recreational and entertainment district would be my preference instead of a "neighborhood".   I know there was a group planning to build a world class aquarium on the lakefront, but they were competing with Jacobs' plan for a smaller aquarium in the Powerhouse and they eventually gave up.  Maybe it will still happen someday.  

Well of course you can walk across an ugly bridge just as well as a beautiful one. You can also drink a rancid glass of milk when you are parched but if you had a choice and a nice cold beer was also there for the taking which one would you choose? 

 

Aside from the esthetic's I don't mean to minimize the connectivity with this bridge but it pains me to say it's s a little like connecting nothing to nothing. 

 

I'm still holding out for real lakefront development. Based on past history l'm not sure we have it in us and it's probably not anyone's fault. This town can only pull off so much development and we have done quite alot in the last few decades. 

7 hours ago, skiwest said:

And with a retractable dome, it could be utilized more than a dozen times per year.

 

This actually makes the current lakefront site more attractive, where it could be attached to the convention center.   The only question would be where do the Browns play while it's being built?   Ohio State?  

6 hours ago, jbdad2 said:

From the News5 story "the city hoping to learn from ODOT about that initial land bridge funding in June."   Are they referring to June 2021 or June 2022?  Is the city hoping to learn that funding is feasible? approved?  part of some budget approval process? I had no idea that the Land Bridge was anything beyond a wild dream.  

June of this year. The city has applied for TRAC funding which is a sort of independent body that selects new build/major transportation projects for funding.
 

If they select the land bridge for funding I’ll buy everyone on UO a drink, because I can’t fathom it happening. 

5 hours ago, Dino said:

There's probably better sites for the stadium than the lakefront, but it's already there and only 22 years old.  I can't imagine hundreds of millions being spent to start all over.  I think rebuilding it would be a huge waste.  The location isn't THAT bad and those hundreds of millions could be used on so many things that would do more for Cleveland.

Why do we use this ridiculously lazy argument? “Those hundreds of millions could be used on so many things that would do more for Cleveland.” The money for this WOULDNT go anywhere else. That’s not how this works. The Haslams (which will be paying a share of the development) aren’t using money to build your Sim City wishes, and other money that would contribute would be directly and specifically earmarked for this project. 
 

As to the (potential) project itself, you’re wrong there too. A big, rushed, poorly configured stadium that is only used a limited time of year (and can’t be used more because it was stupidly built without a retractable roof) is not a place that we should keep running it back with. You’d think that people around here would’ve learned that lesson by now. A new stadium (WITH A RETRACTABLE ROOF) would do wonders for the city. I’m also one who believes the stadium would be better relocated off of the lakefront as well. That would be better for the city also. Stadiums these days do not have long shelf life and I would rather not 10 years from now get right back into the situation we were in before with the toilet bowl known as Cleveland Municipal Stadium

8 hours ago, RE Developer In Training said:

Sleepy Frank has been talking about the lakefront since he took office.  Just about nothing has been done except for this ridiculous bridge to nowhere.  November can't come soon enough, not to say the next one will be better, but then again, can't get any worse!

As did his predecessor, Jane Campbell...even moreso.

10 hours ago, KJP said:

I keep hearing low rumblings that FES is not going to stay on the lakefront.

I still believe that WE should REHAB the still young FES Stadium, ADD a FIX DOME and have a Partership of the CITY, BROWNS, ROCK HALL, SCIENCE CENTER, and a MAJOR DEVELOPER direct the complete REDEVELOPMENT of the 20 ACRES north of FES.  And combined with a Land Bridge the City is planning and that the BROWNS feels is required to properly connect OUR DOWNTOWN with OUR PRIME ASSET: the LAKE ERIE LAKEFRONT!!

 

BUILD IT AND THEY WILL COME...

 

It's like when sometimes a developer has to actually build a project on spec to convince its targeted clients to join their vision for the future development.