15 minutes ago, Larry1962 said:

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.

Thats alot of what ifs...  i mean alot

 

I haven't been down there to see yet, but I like what the Haslam's did with the new Crew stadium.  Maybe that's their test case for the much larger Browns project.  We'll see.  But I have faith in the Haslam's.  They won't half ass this like their predecessors.  It would be nice to see some action relatively soon. 

Edited May 6, 20214 yr by RE Developer In Training

12 hours ago, Jenny said:

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

 

To be fair, Campbell was a one-term mayor -- Jan. 1, 2002-Jan. 1, 2006. Chris Ronayne's lakefront plan wasn't approved by Planning Commission until Dec. 17, 2004. That means the Campbell administration had 2005 to implement it. This remains the in-force lakefront plan. Nothing has replaced or refined it since.

^One year (2005) isn't a long time to do anything of that scale, though she could have at least started. But then again, maybe she thought she had at least five years, assuming she'd win in Nov 2005.

12 hours ago, inlovewithCLE said:

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

I'm assuming that a new stadium will come with major City and County contributions as well as perhaps a new tax or bond issue.  I think that's a fair assumption since every NFL stadium built in the last 10 years has cost well over $1B.  That's the hundreds of millions I believe are at stake- not the Haslam's.  If the Haslam's are paying for it all, then sure, I would support a new stadium.  However, if the political powers that be are going to support a major publicly funded project, I think it would be smarter to invest in something we don't already have or build on what we do have.  A modern airport, downtown RTA loop, land bridge, transit hub, are some examples of how I think we might use public funds to enhance Cleveland.   And I'm all for improving the existing stadium, adding a roof, etc., just at a fraction of the cost of building new.  I guess I just don't think the existing stadium is as terrible as some people do.

 

I travel to Kansas City often, and it's somewhat comparable to Cleveland.  KC's baseball and football stadiums are both about 50 years old, and they've renovated instead of replacing them.  Those stadiums aren't top of the line, but they aren't bad either.  5 years ago, KC built a downtown streetcar line that is free to ride and is currently building a new $1.5B airport (guess what, that's the cost of a new NFL stadium, and probably a cheap one at that).  Those recent investments would have been more difficult had they built new stadiums.  I just think that's a more sustainable way to build up your city; constantly adding newer and better elements instead of rebuilding what you already have.

 

And it's not a lazy argument.  I respect the opinion that a new stadium would be great.  It would.  But the easy thing to do is to wipe the slate clean and start over, wouldn't it?.  That's what I always did in Sim City.  I just don't think that makes sense in this case.

35 minutes ago, Dino said:

I'm assuming that a new stadium will come with major City and County contributions as well as perhaps a new tax or bond issue.  I think that's a fair assumption since every NFL stadium built in the last 10 years has cost well over $1B.  That's the hundreds of millions I believe are at stake- not the Haslam's.  If the Haslam's are paying for it all, then sure, I would support a new stadium.  However, if the political powers that be are going to support a major publicly funded project, I think it would be smarter to invest in something we don't already have or build on what we do have.  A modern airport, downtown RTA loop, land bridge, transit hub, are some examples of how I think we might use public funds to enhance Cleveland.   And I'm all for improving the existing stadium, adding a roof, etc., just at a fraction of the cost of building new.  I guess I just don't think the existing stadium is as terrible as some people do.

 

I travel to Kansas City often, and it's somewhat comparable to Cleveland.  KC's baseball and football stadiums are both about 50 years old, and they've renovated instead of replacing them.  Those stadiums aren't top of the line, but they aren't bad either.  5 years ago, KC built a downtown streetcar line that is free to ride and is currently building a new $1.5B airport (guess what, that's the cost of a new NFL stadium, and probably a cheap one at that).  Those recent investments would have been more difficult had they built new stadiums.  I just think that's a more sustainable way to build up your city; constantly adding newer and better elements instead of rebuilding what you already have.

 

And it's not a lazy argument.  I respect the opinion that a new stadium would be great.  It would.  But the easy thing to do is to wipe the slate clean and start over, wouldn't it?.  That's what I always did in Sim City.  I just don't think that makes sense in this case.

They will put up some money which is what I said. But of course there will be taxpayer money involved because the stadium is literally owned by the government. And the government money that would be put to a stadium would likely either come from the taxes that are put in place for the stadium or from getting bonds based on those taxes. In other words, money specifically meant for the stadium in the first place. Which is my point. That’s why it’s a lazy argument to say “they could spend that money better elsewhere”. That money wouldn’t get spent on anything not involving that stadium 

I also would not support any new taxes going to fund a new football stadium away from the lakefront.  And, for that matter I believe the existing parking tax should be used to fund the expansion and development of public transportation. That said, I do want the football stadium off the lakefront. I think one way of helping to pay for it would be to use some of the revenues from lakefront land sales and a TIF to help support the construction of a new stadium.

When thinking about the cost of a new stadium I think there's a couple things to consider. (1) If I remember correctly a dome can be added to the current stadium, but it would require major renovations which will cost a lot of money. Not to say a dome is necessarily essential, but if we want to get more use out of the stadium then it is necessary. Assuming we get a domed structure one way or the other, its a sunk cost so then we should think about the incremental cost of a new stadium over adding a dome. (2) There were already some discussions of building a soccer stadium on the NS site anyway. If that's still the plan and a new stadium is going to be built why not build a multi-purpose stadium to host both the Browns and the soccer team. Already you're getting more use, even before you consider the additional events that can be held if its domed. 

 

I like the idea of having all three of the major league teams in close proximity. However, I guess I don't currently see the Browns stadium on the lakefront as underutilized space or holding back any development. Until connectivity with downtown is improved with the land bridge and the shore way converted to a blvd (and to a lesser extend Burke is removed) I don't see the area achieving its highest use. 

The lakefront sure look nice during the short time after Municipal stadium was torn down and before the new Browns stadium was built.   What a nice view looking north from Mall C and being able to see the lake with no large obstructions.  I wish I would have taken a few photos.

I'll admit that what i am about to say has no real bones to it...yet...but here's a big ole back door knuckle curve into this conversation.  What if...and this is a big "IF"...the Dolan family moves the Cleveland Indians to Nashville?  The Indians lease with Progressive Field is up in 2023 I believe?  Dolan is changing the name of the franchise and colors.  He cut payroll from 143 million down to 21 million.  Add in the fact that Nashville has an amazing stadium proposal in downtown Nashville and some fans are becoming a little concerned of a potential move. Again, IF that were to happen, would the Progressive Field site become an option for a new Cleveland Browns stadium?  I'll go ahead and duck... lol

Edited May 6, 20214 yr by OhioFinest

5 minutes ago, OhioFinest said:

I'll admit that what i am about to say has no real bones to it...yet...but here's a big ole back door knuckle curve into this conversation.  What if...and this is a big "IF"...the Dolan family moves the Cleveland Indians to Nashville?  The Indians lease with Progressive Field is up in 2023 I believe?  Dolan is changing the name of the franchise and colors.  He cut payroll from 143 million down to 21 million.  Add in the fact that Nashville has an amazing stadium proposal in downtown Nashville and some fans are becoming a little concerned of a potential move. Again, IF that were to happen, would the Progressive Field site become an option for a new Cleveland Browns stadium?  I'll go ahead and duck... lol

The site is too small for an NFL stadium. Also I can see the Dolans selling in 2-3 years as well.

Would it be realistic/possible for fans to walk from downtown to the NS intermodal yards site?

13 minutes ago, OhioFinest said:

I'll admit that what i am about to say has no real bones to it...yet...but here's a big ole back door knuckle curve into this conversation.  What if...and this is a big "IF"...the Dolan family moves the Cleveland Indians to Nashville?  The Indians lease with Progressive Field is up in 2023 I believe?  Dolan is changing the name of the franchise and colors.  He cut payroll from 143 million down to 21 million.  Add in the fact that Nashville has an amazing stadium proposal in downtown Nashville and some fans are becoming a little concerned of a potential move. Again, IF that were to happen, would the Progressive Field site become an option for a new Cleveland Browns stadium?  I'll go ahead and duck... lol

MLB is talking about expanding to 32 teams by 2025, so hopefully this nightmare scenario never happens. Also, the Indians annually have some of the top TV ratings in all of MLB.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.si.com/mlb/indians/.amp/news/indians-tv-ratings-sky-high-among-all-of-mlb-set-to-wrap-up-4th-straight-season-in-the-top-three

6 minutes ago, dski44 said:

Would it be realistic/possible for fans to walk from downtown to the NS intermodal yards site?

Absolutely. It's probably 20mins from Warehouse District and 10 from Gateway, via Ontario or E9th. 

1 hour ago, roman totale XVII said:

Absolutely. It's probably 20mins from Warehouse District and 10 from Gateway, via Ontario or E9th. 

I vote for a riverfront stadium on Scranton Peninsula 🙋🏻

Does anyone know if relocating the port to E. 55th is still a possibility?  Or is that off the table?

Not happening.  But hopefully this will:

 

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2021/04/first-look-cleveland-metroparks-releases-bold-vision-for-remaking-lake-erie-shoreline-with-recycled-river-sediment.html

 

10 hours ago, OhioFinest said:

I'll admit that what i am about to say has no real bones to it...yet...but here's a big ole back door knuckle curve into this conversation.  What if...and this is a big "IF"...the Dolan family moves the Cleveland Indians to Nashville?  The Indians lease with Progressive Field is up in 2023 I believe?  Dolan is changing the name of the franchise and colors.  He cut payroll from 143 million down to 21 million.  Add in the fact that Nashville has an amazing stadium proposal in downtown Nashville and some fans are becoming a little concerned of a potential move. Again, IF that were to happen, would the Progressive Field site become an option for a new Cleveland Browns stadium?  I'll go ahead and duck... lol

It’s basically the worst kept secret the Dolan’s are preparing to sell. They almost sold to Sherman when he was part of the ownership group until he bought the Royals. 
 

From what I hear they’re hiring someone to help negotiate a new TV contract and get the best deal possible, then will sell.

 

And if anyone is moving, it will be the Rays first. Probably Oakland too. I’ve never seen a fan base that keeps suggesting for their team to move based off nothing. Especially one that has been the most well run in town.

Edited May 7, 20214 yr by JB

On 5/4/2021 at 10:46 PM, Cleburger said:

Current status of harbor bridge :  

 

Thanks for the photo. That's quite a clunky looking bridge--esp for a pedestrian bridge. If it were supporting 18-wheelers, I'd get it, but its not. Something more elegant would have been classier. In any event, will it operable 24/7? And who is the operator, the city?

8 minutes ago, Pugu said:

 

Thanks for the photo. That's quite a clunky looking bridge--esp for a pedestrian bridge. If it were supporting 18-wheelers, I'd get it, but its not. Something more elegant would have been classier. In any event, will it operable 24/7? And who is the operator, the city?

It’s like the City of Cleveland held an ugliest possible bridge competition. This was the clear winner. It’s so bad. Ugh.

7 hours ago, Dino said:

Does anyone know if relocating the port to E. 55th is still a possibility?  Or is that off the table?

 

Off the table

49 minutes ago, marty15 said:

It’s like the City of Cleveland held an ugliest possible bridge competition. This was the clear winner. It’s so bad. Ugh.

It is especially sad since the original competition winning design was by Miguel Rosales. Far superior in design and unfortunate Clevelanders are stuck with this awful replacement that should have never passed design review

https://www.rosalespartners.com/project/north-coast-harbor-pedestrian-bridge/

The bridge isn't ugly. Maybe it won't win any beauty competitions, but it isn't the eye sore everyone in this thread is making it out to be. The fact that it isn't as pretty as you're favorite design doesn't make it an ugly eyesore. What's more, I'm guessing most of the artist designed bridges would have gotten considerably beefier once an engineer was tasked with making it operational and safe.

 

At the end of day we have a functional bridge that was actually built, that I anticipate using frequently, maybe several times a week, that will only get more useful as further lakefront development takes place, particularly development near the stadium. Effectively this bridge turns voinovich park from a terminus park to a through park, and as someone who loves walking along the water, I'm happy to see it. 

^ I pretty much agree. I’ll admit that it places function over form and does seem ridiculously over-engineered to bear the load of people walking for a few yards, but overall it’s fine for me. 

This is Grant Park on Chicago's lakefront.  Perhaps Cleveland could do something similar albeit on a smaller scale if FES goes away

Edited May 7, 20214 yr by skiwest

Come on guys. That bridge is butt ugly. The only positive thing that can be said about it is, yes, it does do the primary work of a bridge. But is that what we're looking for here? The minimum?

 

I know we're not Paris but do we have to settle for the lowest common denominator, functionality? 

 

Oh never mind. I give up.

^What is even more sickening is the cost - $17 million - for a bridge that is not needed.

12 minutes ago, skiwest said:

^What is even more sickening is the cost - $17 million - for a bridge that is not needed.

 

Respectfully disagree. I think if you check this pic, you can see how much a bridge - even an arguably ugly one - helps pedestrian flow and access to Voinovich Park, aka Siberia.  

 

 

 

And what exactly goes on at Voinovich park that pedestrians are going to be flocking there?

22 minutes ago, skiwest said:

And what exactly goes on at Voinovich park that pedestrians are going to be flocking there?

 

Have some vision my man! This is all a process....a painfully slow process toward making our Lakefront more welcoming, more accessible and more attractive. 

 

If you've never been to Voinovich Park - it's awesome. It's just relatively removed from the rest of the universe. 

Its a FIVE MINUTE WALK around the harbor....I know, I've timed it many times.  The bridge is silly.  And I'm at Voinovich Park almost every night.   

 Yes, I was there on a beautiful Saturday afternoon a few summers ago.  It was deserted.  Maybe things have changed since then.

Voinovich Park in the summertime is incredibly active.  

Something like this would have been nice. 

39 minutes ago, mack34 said:

Its a FIVE MINUTE WALK around the harbor....I know, I've timed it many times.  The bridge is silly.  And I'm at Voinovich Park almost every night.   

 

And it's also a short walk from the Rock Hall to the Science center....but it's still does not mean the two places are well-connected! 

 

Have you ever been to Baltimore's Inner Harbor? Or any boardwalk? They work because of pedestrian flow. Right now North Coast Harbor has zero, they layout makes no sense from that perspective. 

And while I'm talking about better access, we've seen how popular Edgewater Park has become. Yet the design of the roads makes any event difficult to get to as far as parking goes. It's gridlock, as the park is almost isolated from the street grid. Sure you can bike there or park further away, but that's not exactly a viable option for families or for people with disabilities. 

 

Like Edgewater North Coast Harbor suffers by its separation from the urban context. Too many damn highways. 

22 minutes ago, surfohio said:

And while I'm talking about better access, we've seen how popular Edgewater Park has become. Yet the design of the roads makes any event difficult to get to as far as parking goes. It's gridlock, as the park is almost isolated from the street grid. Sure you can bike there or park further away, but that's not exactly a viable option for families or for people with disabilities. 

 

Like Edgewater North Coast Harbor suffers by its separation from the urban context. Too many damn highways. 

At least North Coast has a rail line in theory. 

22 minutes ago, surfohio said:

Like Edgewater North Coast Harbor suffers by its separation from the urban context. Too many damn highways. 

Well, other cities have highways and/or rail lines between downtown and waterfront - Philly and Toronto come to mind.  So Cleveland is not unique.

6 minutes ago, KFM44107 said:

At least North Coast has a rail line in theory. 

 

Agree, an asset, though I personally find the extra transfer a significant inconvenience. I think KJP? had a good idea on getting a bus-rapid stop at Edgewater. 

8 minutes ago, skiwest said:

Well, other cities have highways and/or rail lines between downtown and waterfront - Philly and Toronto come to mind.  So Cleveland is not unique.

 

I've never been to Toronto, but they do appear to be 50 years ahead of CLE as far as their re-connection to the water goes. 

 

I'm ignorant on the Philly waterfront, even though I grew up 30 min away. I'll check it out on the google. But nobody I knew ever went to Philadelphia explicitly to be by the water; that could be because there's an ocean so close by. 

Edited May 7, 20214 yr by surfohio

Some info on Philly waterfront:

 

 https://www.visitphilly.com/areas/philadelphia-neighborhoods/penns-landing-and-delaware-river-waterfront/

 

Ok forget the bridge. It's too late to change it. Here's what l propose and l'm only half joking. Since we have shown over the last 30-40 years that we have no clue how to design let alone develop a waterfront plan we need to create a taskforce comprised of people who have the authority to act. Then send them around the country on a fact finding trip. They need to see what works (and doesn't) and also find out what steps are necessary to actually fund and build a successful waterfront. 

 

No shame in admitting you don't know what you're doing. We don't have to re-invent the wheel here. Just copy what works. 

The bridge is in the wrong place.  If we wanted to improve pedestrian connection around NCH, we should have put the bridge across the mouth of the harbor.  NCH is "U" shaped (diagrammatically).  This makes a shortcut around the middle of the U, instead of turning the "U" into an "O", which would have been the most useful shortcut.

 

Also, it's the most godawfully ugly bridge design I've ever seen.

3 hours ago, cadmen said:

Ok forget the bridge. It's too late to change it. Here's what l propose and l'm only half joking. Since we have shown over the last 30-40 years that we have no clue how to design let alone develop a waterfront plan we need to create a taskforce comprised of people who have the authority to act. Then send them around the country on a fact finding trip. They need to see what works (and doesn't) and also find out what steps are necessary to actually fund and build a successful waterfront. 

 

No shame in admitting you don't know what you're doing. We don't have to re-invent the wheel here. Just copy what works. 

 

Well we tore down the buildings that housed the Ingenuity Fest. Google it. It was amazing.

 

So we lost that much. But it proved that getting people to the lakefront isn't some billion dollar scheme, but more of a programming issue. Then you literally build on that. 

 

 

 

 

Chicago's lakefront was once pretty nasty too. Now it's just pretty....

 

 

^ And that's the thing that makes it so frustrating - knowing the potential of the lakefront (ok, we probably will never match what Chicago has done)  But the majority of us realize what we could build

here in Cleveland.  Why is it that it can happen in other places, but not here?  That's a fair question, isn't it?   @cadmenis onto something when he says, "We just don't know how to design and develop a lakefront here - we need to see what works and what doesn't and how to build it."  (And it's more that 30-40 years that we've talking about it, on some level, already)  There's something in the dynamics and circumstances locally that has become the accepted culture here - at some level, we're willing to let the conversation go round and round and round - year after year, decade after decade. 

 

I don't know the details of how Chicago did what they did - but of one thing I'm certain - they didn't accomplish it without a concerted effort by a cross section of major stakeholders in their city.  Somehow, we have to bring our key players together, from state and local business, the real estate power-brokers,  the key players (e.g. the Hazlams).  government leaders and the movers/shakers who love the city and can make things happen.  There's got to be a more of a sense of urgency in Cleveland - coupled with a real commitment by the powers-that-be to transform this waterfront and how the city can reach it and interact with it.  If we really commit, as a city and a metropolitan region -  to achieving this transformative change - well, Chicago is an exemplar of what could actually be done.  

 

We have to make up our mind that we want and deserve a world-class waterfront.  Maybe a lot of us don't really believe it.  Until we believe it, we definitely won't be able to do it.  I feel like there's more energy and drive in the city in many years - a young group of professionals dedicated to building this city for future generations to enjoy.  I know it's going to be anything but easy -any decisions that get made in the next few years won't be fully realized for decades to come - but based on a new generation of Clevelanders and their creativity and sense of entrepreneurship - I think we might have a better chance than maybe we've ever had before to start making the transformation on the waterfront.  

Edited May 8, 20214 yr by CleveFan

11 hours ago, X said:

The bridge is in the wrong place.  If we wanted to improve pedestrian connection around NCH, we should have put the bridge across the mouth of the harbor.  NCH is "U" shaped (diagrammatically).  This makes a shortcut around the middle of the U, instead of turning the "U" into an "O", which would have been the most useful shortcut.

 

Also, it's the most godawfully ugly bridge design I've ever seen.

EXACTLY!  Its in the wrong spot!!  Mouth of the harbor is where it should of gone.  In dream world, we move the Port of Cleveland to Burkes land.  Then you have a walkway that goes from Voinovich Park all the way to the mouth of the Cuyahoga River.  And Then down the Cuyahoga.  A boy can dream....

12 hours ago, X said:

The bridge is in the wrong place.  If we wanted to improve pedestrian connection around NCH, we should have put the bridge across the mouth of the harbor. 

I'm guessing the bridge not being in the mouth of the harbor has something to do with the Mather Museum. They clearly went out of their way to make sure it still has unimpeded Lake access. 

 

Also, while I totally agree it will be the better location in the future, it almost certainly isn't right now, as there is nothing at all on the other side of the harbor. 

13 hours ago, X said:

  NCH is "U" shaped (diagrammatically).  This makes a shortcut around the middle of the U, instead of turning the "U" into an "O", which would have been the most useful shortcut.

Actually,the shape is more like " b".  A true "U" shape might have been better.

I meant in terms of circulation.  If you drew a circulation map, it's a "U".  You can go up one side or the other, you can cross at the bottom.  They've made it into a b though, now.  You can go up one side or the other.  You can cross at the bottom, or the middle, but not the top.