16 hours ago, DO_Summers said:

But of course... there's some sort of weird conservation of surface parking space natural law in effect in downtown Cleveland.  Its apparently immutable.  🤨

Looks like a classic case of the law of averages… take surface parking away from Public Square, have to add some on the lakefront! 😅

To be fair, it was an abandoned single-story warehouse on the site prior to the NFL draft.   So at least the parking was not put in place of a salvageable building.  

On 7/25/2021 at 1:38 AM, Stormtrek said:

Taken earlier this month. I always love appreciating how modern the skyline looks from the north and that day the new lift bridge decided to make its own contribution to the skyline 😄

 

 

Really appreciate this angle/setup, don't think I've ever seen a shot from this vantage before! 

On 7/31/2021 at 10:14 PM, KJP said:

 

SATURDAY, JULY 31, 2021

'Temporary', huge parking lot planned on downtown lakefront

 

A parking lot with nearly 2,000 parking spaces is proposed to be built on 18 acres of downtown lakefront land, with parking spaces being placed right up next to the water's edge of Lake Erie. That's according to a building permit application submitted to the city this past week on behalf of the Greater Cleveland Sports Commission.

 

The application, drafted by Osborn Engineering, proposes to add 1,175 parking spaces to the 775 spaces that are already existing along and immediately north of Erieside Avenue and First Energy Stadium, home of the Cleveland Browns. The total number of parking spaces would be 1,950 if the application is approved by the city's Building Department.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blogspot.com/2021/07/temporary-huge-parking-lot-planned-on.html

Not opposed to the parking. I am opposed to the lot. Just build a damn garage with first floor retail. OR, that “Greater Cleveland Sports Hall of Fame” thing that they run? You could, I don’t know, build an actual physical space for it and put parking on top of it. I’m supportive of the need for parking down there for games, but a big ass surface lot? No bueno 

Edited August 2, 20213 yr by inlovewithCLE

I’m really glad it’s NOT a garage. The cost to build would be a mere $80,000 (sounds unbelievably cheap to me), which means the project would pay for itself within 4 browns games (assuming they charge a conservative $20 a spot). So it’s easy to see why this temporary lot is appealing. I don’t see a problem with the project so long as it’s paired with some kind of commitment that keeps the lot temporary. It’s not like construction of something permanent on the lakefront would be starting by February, so the parking spaces they’re making would just be gravel and dirt. So just saying this could be a good opportunity to put a little pressure on the sports commission in exchange for letting them have their spots. The sunk costs are minimal and so there’s no inherent reason the lot can’t be temporary.

48 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

I’m really glad it’s NOT a garage. The cost to build would be a mere $80,000 (sounds unbelievably cheap to me), which means the project would pay for itself within 4 browns games (assuming they charge a conservative $20 a spot). So it’s easy to see why this temporary lot is appealing. I don’t see a problem with the project so long as it’s paired with some kind of commitment that keeps the lot temporary. It’s not like construction of something permanent on the lakefront would be starting by February, so the parking spaces they’re making would just be gravel and dirt. So just saying this could be a good opportunity to put a little pressure on the sports commission in exchange for letting them have their spots. The sunk costs are minimal and so there’s no inherent reason the lot can’t be temporary.

Don't forget to add weekly power washing to that budget. That lot is for the birds, literally!

19 hours ago, Cleburger said:

To be fair, it was an abandoned single-story warehouse on the site prior to the NFL draft.   So at least the parking was not put in place of a salvageable building.  

 

I could be wrong but I don't remember reading anywhere that the place was not salvageable. 

 

Its renovation was part of the original plan, which was practically the best part of the plan imho. Also anyone who had been to Ingenuity Fest could see the potential the place had. 

 

We could have built on what was there. We could build incrementally and organically on a realistic budget. We could do millions of things really. But instead we are planning and planning some more, and parking there and waiting on billions of dollars to somehow materialize. 

 

^ Renovation of the warehouse was plan B (or C) after Pace was unable to find the tenants and funding for larger mixed use structures. The original site plan showed a mix of low and midrise buildings along the waterfront. 

 

As for the temporary parking lot, it's sometimes harder to get rid of greenspace than it is parking. If they are serious about actually developing this land in 5 years then it's probably better as a parking lot for now.

The lot on Euclid where CIty club apartments are supposed to go have been sitting there for 40 years until a plan materialized, Public square like 30 years, the surface lots east of downtown continue their decades/half century long existence. There is no such thing as a "temporary surface lot" in this city. And the fact it is going on our F***ing lakefront is more criminal than the ones on public square.

Here's a brilliant idea: Let's dedicate acres of the city's most valuable property to massive impervious surface lot that will be used 8 days each year.  Push it right to the water's edge to gain as many spaces as possible.  After all, nobody wants to appreciate the waterfront or experience and green space.

 

Just as "The mistake on the lake" label is fading the city does its best to reinvigorate it.  

I absolutely hate the idea of parking on the lakefront, even temporarily.  It's a bad look.  Would it have been that difficult or prohibitively expensive to create an open green space with a boardwalk and some basic landscaping?  That would've been a better "temporary" use of the precious lakefront and door step to the city while we wait for whatever big development is going to come along, hopefully in my lifetime.  

5 minutes ago, CleveFan said:

I absolutely hate the idea of parking on the lakefront, even temporarily.  It's a bad look.  Would it have been that difficult or prohibitively expensive to create an open green space with a boardwalk and some basic landscaping?  That would've been a better "temporary" use of the precious lakefront and door step to the city while we wait for whatever big development is going to come along, hopefully in my lifetime.  

Yes, probably the cost of green space might be cheaper than the cost of a parking lot

BUT - you have to remember greenspace WILL NOT generate any revenue and we are

talking YEARS maybe a decade or  maybe we will wait until another plan  is presented 

down the road.

I may have missed this info from earlier up in the thread, but after reading some of the comments from the articles on this issue, is sounds like many important players are opposed to this idea. More important though, the language: is this lot "approved" or "proposed", because Cleveland.com I believe is using language of a "planned parking lot" while others are saying "proposed parking lot". My hope is that if this is "proposed" that the Haslam's + City either a) won't let this happen, or b) will only allow it under certain conditions of their lakefront vision actually getting done in some form, no ifs ands or buts....

 

If these questions have already been answered, then my bad, but if not, hopefully it will alleviate the back and forth of "this should happen" "this shouldn't happen". I like being fully informed, if you know what I mean haha

 

Revenue Projection: 1,125 new spots x 8 games x $40/spot = $360,000 year  

 

After subtracting management fees and maintenance costs and I don't a ton of revenue hitting the city's coffers.      

1 hour ago, simplythis said:

Yes, probably the cost of green space might be cheaper than the cost of a parking lot

BUT - you have to remember greenspace WILL NOT generate any revenue and we are

talking YEARS maybe a decade or  maybe we will wait until another plan  is presented 

down the road.

If done correctly they could have parked cars on the greenspace on game days and left the other 355 days to public access.   But there is the whole liability problem as well.....

36 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

If done correctly they could have parked cars on the greenspace on game days and left the other 355 days to public access.   But there is the whole liability problem as well.....

That’s why I think they should build a parking GARAGE with first floor retail so that it both serves the parking needs by the stadium (which is admittingly a nightmare to park by) and have some actual functional use for it other than a surface lot. And if you build it correctly, you could add a building on top later, a la, the Beacon

1 hour ago, jbdad2 said:

Revenue Projection: 1,125 new spots x 8 games x $40/spot = $360,000 year  

 

After subtracting management fees and maintenance costs and I don't a ton of revenue hitting the city's coffers.      

A bit short on the projection.  Left off one or two preseason games and every other year a 9th home game (unless it becomes one of the games played in London).  If the success from last season carries over this year and beyond, some post-season home games can be factored in as well.

15 minutes ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

A bit short on the projection.  Left off one or two preseason games and every other year a 9th home game (unless it becomes one of the games played in London).  If the success from last season carries over this year and beyond, some post-season home games can be factored in as well.

Haven't the Haslams proposed more events to be held at the stadium?  The added parking would support that.  Why I think it might be temporary is the Haslams also were supporters of intensive development for the same property.

36 minutes ago, Dougal said:

Haven't the Haslams proposed more events to be held at the stadium?  The added parking would support that.  Why I think it might be temporary is the Haslams also were supporters of intensive development for the same property.

I couldn't care less if they had events 365 days per year. Parked cars have absolutely no reason to be parked on the waterfront. We've critical on how bad Cleveland's waterfront is for decades, and this decision just throws us back even more compared to where we were.

Just now, AsDustinFoxWouldSay said:

I couldn't care less if they had events 365 days per year. Parked cars have absolutely no reason to be parked on the waterfront. We've critical on how bad Cleveland's waterfront is for decades, and this decision just throws us back even more compared to where we were.

 

No real leadership. Plenty of vision though for whatever that's worth. 

 

The lakefront of Cleveland, Ohio just continues to be a perpetual disappointment. 

12 minutes ago, AsDustinFoxWouldSay said:

I couldn't care less if they had events 365 days per year. Parked cars have absolutely no reason to be parked on the waterfront. We've critical on how bad Cleveland's waterfront is for decades, and this decision just throws us back even more compared to where we were.

You’re always gonna have parking on the lakefront as long as there’s a stadium on the lakefront. That doesn’t bother me. It’s the surface lot part that bothers me

21 minutes ago, AsDustinFoxWouldSay said:

I couldn't care less if they had events 365 days per year. Parked cars have absolutely no reason to be parked on the waterfront. 

I have to agree.  Look, I hear the rationalizations that “it will produce some revenue” and/or “we could really use the parking for the games” but….

 
This is the front door to the city from its sexiest vantage point.  There’s a “perception becomes reality” lack of appreciation for the aesthetic importance and image created by that lakefront -( which will hopefully be seen on national tv many times in the next few seasons with the Browns.). 
 

I’d be willing to forego the revenue or whatever convenience for the look of folks strolling along a boardwalk with the city’s towers rising in the background.  And I don’t think you have to wait to have  the whole billion dollar lakefront plan done to move forward with a portion.  
 

But the culture of the city has not fully respected the lakefront’s strategic importance since - well, a long long time.  Once a parking lot is established there it might be trickier to lose it than you think.

Think of what could be available for the average citizen of the city to access any day of the year - and it could look great and be another part of the attraction of living in a beautiful waterfront downtown. 

 

I think we need a kind of Paradigm Shift towards being guardians of our lakefront. 

Edited August 2, 20213 yr by CleveFan

1 hour ago, inlovewithCLE said:

You’re always gonna have parking on the lakefront as long as there’s a stadium on the lakefront. That doesn’t bother me. It’s the surface lot part that bothers me

 

Browns games are special. There's only 9-10 of them per year. If people can't walk 10-20 minutes from their car to a game, stay home and watch it on TV.

20 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

Browns games are special. There's only 9-10 of them per year. If people can't walk 10-20 minutes from their car to a game, stay home and watch it on TV.

Have u seen most of the NFL stadiums across the league and the sea of parking usually around those stadiums? That’s the price of having a major league team in your city. Fighting that part is silly in my opinion. I agree with everybody that the parking lot on the lakefront is not ideal, but an “urban design friendly NFL stadium” is virtually nonexistent. Either live with that or move it off of the lake. No one who has any sense should want the stadium to be somewhere in the suburbs, but there’s going to be parking around an NFL stadium. I accept that. The real question is lot vs garage and if there’s a better way to do it

Dumb question, but isn't it already a parking lot?  This is an old picture before the warehouse was taken down, but it looks like there is a lot already on the western half.  

 

If it has to be a parking lot, at least put in perimeter of greenspace with a trail.  

 

Edited August 3, 20213 yr by smimes

14 hours ago, inlovewithCLE said:

Have u seen most of the NFL stadiums across the league and the sea of parking usually around those stadiums? That’s the price of having a major league team in your city. Fighting that part is silly in my opinion. I agree with everybody that the parking lot on the lakefront is not ideal, but an “urban design friendly NFL stadium” is virtually nonexistent. Either live with that or move it off of the lake. No one who has any sense should want the stadium to be somewhere in the suburbs, but there’s going to be parking around an NFL stadium. I accept that. The real question is lot vs garage and if there’s a better way to do it

US Bank arena is probably the best example of how it should be and can be done

26 minutes ago, YO to the CLE said:

US Bank arena is probably the best example of how it should be and can be done

 

what city is that?

Temporary or not; if there isn't some degree of green landscaping & some space defining hardscape elements at the water's edge, then all who created this; all who approve of this; and all Clevelanders, should be made to hang their heads in a pillory of shame.

Edited August 3, 20213 yr by ExPatClevGuy

On another Lakefront note, I was down in that area this past weekend and it was utter chaos in the intersection around E 9th/Marginal/Erieside Ave.   The city traffic department really needs to rethink this intersection as it has become downright dangerous on nice-weather weekend days.   The E 9th traffic northbound has no stop sign, while the other three directions do, causing much confusion for drivers turning onto E 9th southbound.     In the midst of it all, there are lots of out-of-town visitors walking in the street from the parking on Marginal not paying attention to where they are going.    

I suppose this another piece of the Lakefront puzzle that needs thoughtful attention, and will not get it from the current city leadership.

20 minutes ago, Pugu said:

 

what city is that?

Minneapolis

4 minutes ago, YO to the CLE said:

Minneapolis

To be clear, US Bank Arena was in Cincinnati (not sure of naming rights now)

US Bank Stadium is in Minneapolis. 

^Gotcha! Thanks for clarifying. US Bank likes their name on stuff. 

 

TUESDAY, AUGUST 3, 2021

Lakefront developments at East 55th alive again

 

Two significant lakefront developments near Gordon Park were put on the back burner by their developers during the depths of the pandemic. But now, both developers are bringing their projects forward to get them cooking again.

 

Part of the reason is the Cleveland Metroparks is leading a comprehensive effort to improve the lakefront near its Gordon Park and East 55th Street Marina which is a popular recreational area.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blogspot.com/2021/08/lakefront-developments-at-east-55th.html

Litt piece from this morning. 

 

 

I cannot read the article since I am not a subscriber so I don't know exactly what Litt had to say.  However the headlines in Cleveland.com seem to indicate that Litt had a glowing review for the Banks project in Cincinnati which I guess surprised me (again don't know if this is actually the case, just basing it on headlines and article blurbs).

 

I don't like critiquing projects in other cities since I am generally not in the know about the nuts and bolts.  Moreover, I don't like commenting on something I have not seen in person, and although I know Cincinnati pretty well since I went to college near there and have many friends who live/have lived there and have been many times, I have never been to the Banks.  So all of my impressions of the Banks are basically from this forum and comments from Cincy forum members over the years.  With that as background I certainly hope we do not use the Banks as a model as apparently suggested by Litt.

 

My impressions of the Banks, whether fair or not given the above:

 

!.  A wonderful opportunity (a whole new neighborhood on the river between two stadiums just minutes form the historical central business district) has been a wasted opportunity to do something truly wonderful.

 

2.  It has taken forever to build out and still is not close to being done.

 

3.  The architecture and the quality of construction is mediocre at best.

 

4.  The retail seems to be primarily restaurants which turn over time and time again.  When it is not game day or there is not some sort of special event the place apparently can seem dead and the restaurants have trouble surviving.  Not a true neighborhood for the various apartments because convenience retail seems to be lacking.

 

5.  There doesn't seem to be a master plan.  They always seem to be changing what could/should go in based on the fact that it is taking so long to develop and there are so many available lots.

 

6.  Despite the fact it is so close to the central business district and the new street car serves it to an extent (does not actually run through it) does not seem connected to the rest of the city.  I get the impression that the freeway contributes to this to a great extent and years of discussion regarding capping the freeway have apparently gone no where.

 

7.  Too much deference is given to the Bengals in terms of planning and development, especially parking and tailgating opportunities.

 

8.  The park along the river seems fantastic.

 

Again, I don't know if we should be touting the Banks as a model for Cleveland

Edited August 22, 20213 yr by Htsguy

I cannot read the article since I am not a subscriber so I don't know exactly what Litt had to say.  However the headlines in Cleveland.com seem to indicate that Litt had a glowing review for the Banks project in Cincinnati which I guess surprised me (again don't know if this is actually the case, just basing it on headlines and article blurbs).
 
I don't like critiquing projects in other cities since I am generally not in the know about the nuts and bolts.  Moreover, I don't like commenting on something I have not seen in person, and although I know Cincinnati pretty well since I went to college near there and have many friends who live/have lived there and have been many times, I have never been to the Banks.  So all of my impressions of the Banks are basically from this forum and comments from Cincy forum members over the years.  With that as background I certainly hope we do not use the Banks as a model as apparently suggested by Litt.
 
My impressions of the Banks, whether fair or not given the above:
 
!.  A wonderful opportunity (a whole new neighborhood on the river between two stadiums just minutes form the historical central business district) has been a wasted opportunity to do something truly wonderful.
 
2.  It has take forever to build out and still is not close to being done.
 
3.  The architecture and the quality of construction is mediocre at best.
 
4.  The retail seems to be primarily restaurants which turn over time and time again.  When it is not game day or there is not some sort of special event the place apparently can seem dead and the restaurants have trouble surviving.  Not a true neighborhood for the various apartments because convenience retail seems to be lacking.
 
5.  There doesn't seem to be a master plan.  They always seem to be changing what could/should go in based on the fact that it is taking so long to develop and their are seem many available lots.
 
6.  Despite the fact it is so close to the central business district and the new street car serves it to an extent (does not actually run through it) does not seem connected to the rest of the city.  I get the impression that the freeway contributes to this to a great extent and years of discussion regarding capping the freeway have apparently gone no where.
 
7.  Too much difference is given to the Bengals in terms of planning and development, especially parking and tailgating opportunities.
 
8.  The park along the river seems fantastic.
 
Again, I don't know if we should be touting the Banks as a model for Cleveland

So I get the comparisons but then again I don't. Cincinnati's waterfront neighborhood has similar placement to North Coast Harbor so I understand that comparison. At the end of the day Cincy built a neighborhood on their riverfront which is similar to what we are doing with the Flats East Bank, basically Live Work Play. While the Banks is very nice and impressive when I visited Cincy, the neighborhood was not very full or active in the middle of the day unlike FEB when I go down there. 

12 minutes ago, MyPhoneDead said:

So I get the comparisons but then again I don't. Cincinnati's waterfront neighborhood has similar placement to North Coast Harbor so I understand that comparison. At the end of the day Cincy built a neighborhood on their riverfront which is similar to what we are doing with the Flats East Bank, basically Live Work Play. While the Banks is very nice and impressive when I visited Cincy, the neighborhood was not very full or active unlike FEB when I go down there. 

I agree. FEB is much more comparable. However we do have a massive park in the works (already some work being done) on one side of the river and a slow greening process on the peninsula of the other. So we are on our way. Our lakefront needs serious work, something a land bridge would do alot to get development started. 

It’s standard click bait from .com, pitting similarly sized cities against Cleveland, making the other seem light years ahead. In this case it’s pretty weak.

On 7/14/2021 at 9:01 AM, freefourur said:

Ontario Stone listing 5-acre parcel for development next to Wendy Park Bridge, Whiskey Island Trail

 

 

 

https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/ontario-stone-listing-5-acre-parcel-for-development-next-to-wendy-park-bridge-whiskey-island-trail

Here's the loopnet listing for the land, selling for $9.95 million:

https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/2550-Riverbed-St-Cleveland-OH/23928662/

Anyone have $100 million laying around that I could borrow? Lol

Funny how the seller of the property is keen to let the buyers know the great things they can build on it (via neat pictures).  I guess my response would be "if it is such a great opportunity why don't you build the pretty building?".

23 minutes ago, Htsguy said:

Funny how the seller of the property is keen to let the buyers know the great things they can build on it (via neat pictures).  I guess my response would be "if it is such a great opportunity why don't you build the pretty building?".

I get what you're saying, but the seller is a crushed stone supplier, not a real estate developer.

On 8/22/2021 at 7:49 PM, w28th said:

It’s standard click bait from .com, pitting similarly sized cities against Cleveland, making the other seem light years ahead. In this case it’s pretty weak.

The article I read was not at all as you both described. Its a well written, balanced article that tried to extract lessons learned in Cincy that could be relevant to similar projects in Cleveland.   Go back and re-read it and see if you still disagree. 😉

Lakefront pedestrian bridge to move forward with $5M feasibility study

Michael Indriolo - TheLand - Sep. 20, 2021

 

 

"The latest step in a decades-long push to revitalize Cleveland’s lakefront got a boost Monday when Cleveland City Council approved the funding for a preliminary study into a new pedestrian land bridge connecting North Coast Harbor to the mall atop the Huntington Convention Center downtown. Council’s Municipal Services and Properties Committee approved an ordinance on Monday allowing the Mayor’s Office of Capital Projects to accept Ohio Department of Transportation funding for a roughly year-long study into the feasibility of the lakefront pedestrian bridge. ... ODOT awarded the project $2.5 million earlier this summer, and the city will match that with $2.5 million in road and bridge bonds."

 

Cleveland City Planning Commission approves $300 million ‘CHEERS’ vision for new lakefront park areas on city’s East Side.

 

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2021/10/cleveland-city-planning-commission-approves-300-million-cheers-vision-for-new-lakefront-park-areas-on-citys-east-side.html

I absolutely love the convoluted layout of the new lakefront park. It looks organic not squared off like the downtown shoreline. Maybe some day we can create irregular islands off downtown using dredging's from the river like Toronto has although it may not be practical. The breakwall is there for a reason. BUT if it were possible wouldn't that be something?

 

I've always thought that while we don't have a lot of geographic assets (other than the lake of course) one of the most interesting things we do have is our crooked river, which in turn created those two peninsulas in the Flats. Imagine whole neighborhoods with little canals cut out for boat slips. Add restaurants/bars, water taxi's plying the river with stops along the new downtown lakefront and those islands l dream about. 

 

Finally, really take advantage of all the unique bridges with LED lighting. Who wouldn't want to see that vision come to pass? It would put us on the map for visitors and bring in lots of cash. Ah well. I'm sure none of that will get done

but can you imagine it...

4 minutes ago, cadmen said:

I absolutely love the convoluted layout of the new lakefront park. It looks organic not squared off like the downtown shoreline. Maybe some day we can create irregular islands off downtown using dredging's from the river like Toronto has although it may not be practical. The breakwall is there for a reason. BUT if it were possible wouldn't that be something?

 

I've always thought that while we don't have a lot of geographic assets (other than the lake of course) one of the most interesting things we do have is our crooked river, which in turn created those two peninsulas in the Flats. Imagine whole neighborhoods with little canals cut out for boat slips. Add restaurants/bars, water taxi's plying the river with stops along the new downtown lakefront and those islands l dream about. 

 

Finally, really take advantage of all the unique bridges with LED lighting. Who wouldn't want to see that vision come to pass? It would put us on the map for visitors and bring in lots of cash. Ah well. I'm sure none of that will get done

but can you imagine it...

 

Agreed.  The only thing this plan is missing, is a bridge that connects to the island on the western side to form a loop.  A loop would be so much nicer for walking/access than having to go out and back on the same pavement.  

Just to be clear, it will take 10 years worth of accumulated dredgings to create the park area. That's after 2-3 years of detailed design and permitting. My eight-year-old son will be able to legally drink beer by then.

57 minutes ago, KJP said:

Just to be clear, it will take 10 years worth of accumulated dredgings to create the park area. That's after 2-3 years of detailed design and permitting. My eight-year-old son will be able to legally drink beer by then.

Which would be more annoying if it weren't for the fact that the project exists partly as a convenient way to get rid of dredged material.

2 hours ago, cadmen said:

I absolutely love the convoluted layout of the new lakefront park. It looks organic not squared off like the downtown shoreline. Maybe some day we can create irregular islands off downtown using dredging's from the river like Toronto has although it may not be practical. The breakwall is there for a reason. BUT if it were possible wouldn't that be something?

 

I've always thought that while we don't have a lot of geographic assets (other than the lake of course) one of the most interesting things we do have is our crooked river, which in turn created those two peninsulas in the Flats. Imagine whole neighborhoods with little canals cut out for boat slips. Add restaurants/bars, water taxi's plying the river with stops along the new downtown lakefront and those islands l dream about. 

 

Finally, really take advantage of all the unique bridges with LED lighting. Who wouldn't want to see that vision come to pass? It would put us on the map for visitors and bring in lots of cash.