I know my ideas are ambitious and would require a long timeline but think of it this way Ken; when you're 50 years old and you plant an oak sapling you are not doing it for you but for the next generation. 

2 hours ago, cadmen said:

I know my ideas are ambitious and would require a long timeline but think of it this way Ken; when you're 50 years old and you plant an oak sapling you are not doing it for you but for the next generation. 

 

Absolutely. I understand that cities take decades to realize their grander visions. But I also expect to hear people in the next year or two wondering what happened to the proposed lakefront park.

2 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

Absolutely. I understand that cities take decades to realize their grander visions. But I also expect to hear people in the next year or two wondering what happened to the proposed lakefront park.

Unfortunately that seems to be so true in Cleveland (or maybe it is this administration).  The planning commission is presented with these great visionary 

plans by staff, they are approved and 4-5 years later not a peep.

Greater Cleveland Partnership will coordinate public-private engagement on lakefront project, with city in lead role

 

By Steven Litt, cleveland.com

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio — Baiju Shah, the president and CEO of the Greater Cleveland Partnership, the region’s chamber of commerce, said Friday that the organization would coordinate public and private engagement with the City of Cleveland’s new effort to create a seamless link between downtown and the Lake Erie waterfront, but would not be taking over leadership of the project.

 

“We’ve been asked to perform an assistance role; we’re not driving the project,’’ Shah said Friday morning.  His remarks followed Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson’s final State of the City address Thursday night.

 

As reported by The Plain Dealer and cleveland.com, Jackson said that GCP has been working with his administration and will potentially work with the next one “to create a roadmap that will be necessary to advance this vision and bring it to fruition.” Shah said he wanted to further “elucidate what the mayor and the city asked us to do.” He said GCP would convene public, private, and civic entities to “coordinate and connect a stream of activities that will be needed to advance the lakefront project in its early stages.’'

 

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2021/10/greater-cleveland-partnership-will-coordinate-public-private-engagement-on-lakefront-project-with-city-in-lead-role.html

Lots of stuff on this week's agenda. This is just one of many items....

 

MANDATORY REFERRALS

 

Ordinance No. 839-2021(Ward 10/Councilmember Hairston): Authorizing the Director of

Public Works to enter into a lease with Landmark At The Lake, LLC, or its designee, for

development of apartment units and parking on a portion of PPN 105-02-002A for a term

of ninety-three years; authorizing the Director to enter into a property adoption

agreement with LL 55 Park, LLC, or its approved designee, to improve and maintain a

public park located on a portion of 105-02-002A that is adjacent to the leased area for a

term of ninety-three years; and authorizing the Director of Public Works to enter into a

submerged lands lease with the State of Ohio for these portions of PPN 105-02-002A for a

term of ninety-nine years.

 

Here's my own meager contribution.....

 

 

Cleveland lakefront park wins design funds

By Ken Prendergast / November 20, 2021

 

While shovel-ready plans for an expanded lakefront park just east of downtown Cleveland could be just 18 months away, don’t expect to be able to use that enlarged park for many more years. That’s especially true for a proposed off-shore park island.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2021/11/20/cleveland-lakefront-park-wins-design-funds/

Western Reserve Land Conservancy buys Euclid Beach mobile home park to ensure public role in future of a key lakefront property

Steven Litt - Cleveland.com - Dec. 5, 2021

 

 

"The Western Reserve Land Conservancy announced Sunday that it has purchased the 28.5-acre Euclid Beach Mobile Home Community overlooking Lake Erie to ensure a strong public role in planning the future of the property, and to avert the possibility of additional heavy private development on an already crowded section of lakefront. The $5.8 million purchase from a subsidiary of Dallas-based Moore Enterprises, could lead to the expansion and consolidation of fragmented Cleveland Metroparks units in the Euclid Creek Reservation that flank the mobile home park to the east and west.  ... If they were all completely connected in the future, the mobile home park, the library property, and the Metroparks units would total 135.2 acres, or slightly less than the 146.7 acres of land at Edgewater Park on Cleveland’s West Side."

 

 

$12M wasted on this clunky looking thing which was totally unnecessary. 

 

https://wtam.iheart.com/content/2021-12-14-north-coast-harbor-bridge-ribbon-cutting-set-for-wednesday/

 

Edited December 14, 20213 yr by LibertyBlvd

what a great move and that seems a fair enough price --

 

given time and some thought, this could be a real showplace mega-park -- and a big draw for locals and visitors.

1 hour ago, LibertyBlvd said:

$12M wasted on this clunky looking thing which was totally unnecessary. 

 

https://wtam.iheart.com/content/2021-12-14-north-coast-harbor-bridge-ribbon-cutting-set-for-wednesday/

Yep

 

2 hours ago, mrnyc said:

what a great move and that seems a fair enough price --

 

given time and some thought, this could be a real showplace mega-park -- and a big draw for locals and visitors.

It could easily be that without that ridiculous, ugly and un-needed bridge.

Can we please, please, please name that terrible bridge after Frank Jackson? 

The appropriateness of this honor will be exact and self-evident.

Edited December 15, 20213 yr by ExPatClevGuy

15 hours ago, ExPatClevGuy said:

Can we please, please, please name that terrible bridge after Frank Jackson? 

The appropriateness of this honor will be exact and self-evident.

The Frank Jacknife Bridge?  

I attempted a traverse of the Frank Jacknife on my lunch break today.  Alas, it's still blocked off by construction equipment and fencing.  Quite fitting.

1 minute ago, sizzlinbeef said:

I attempted a traverse of the Frank Jacknife on my lunch break today.  Alas, it's still blocked off by construction equipment and fencing.  Quite fitting.

Hopefully the thing is counter-weighted so it can open without any mechanical action....otherwise it would put the Goodtime out of business when it gets stuck down in the spring!  

It looks like you can drive a tank across that thing.

11 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

It looks like you can drive a tank across that thing.

I wouldn't be surprised if this bridge was designed to handle light vehicle traffic for emergency/maintenance situations. Ten is a very reasonable and common safety factor for anything where a failure endangers human life. So I wouldn't be surprised if this was designed to fail at the weight of 10 standard vehicles or more, which might allow for a(n unsafe) tank crossing... 🤣

 

I'm just theorizing of course, but based on what I would consider smart engineering, which is designing for the worst case possible scenario, and adding safety on top of that. Another possibility is that the worst case scenario was the whole bridge filled with people, all jumping at once, which could be similar or even higher. 

I don't think I've seen this posted yet.  NOACA seems to be leading an impact study for the potential land bridge.  They're looking at 5 concepts:
A. No major improvements/changes
B. Land bridge + remove Shoreway entirely to maximize development space
C. Land bridge + convert Shoreway and Marginal/Erieside into a single boulevard
D. Same as C + adding a connection at E 18th St.
E. Land bridge only

 

More info on each concept starting at page 51 in the agenda for their meeting coming up this week:

https://www.noaca.org/home/showpublisheddocument/27406/637783924624587362

 

if theyre interested in keeping the main ave bridge long-term, but get rid of the connector over w 3rd, i think it would be a good idea to route the SR2 exits to w 3rd and open up lakeside for development a little bit

 

2 hours ago, acd said:

I don't think I've seen this posted yet.  NOACA seems to be leading an impact study for the potential land bridge.  They're looking at 5 concepts:
A. No major improvements/changes
B. Land bridge + remove Shoreway entirely to maximize development space
C. Land bridge + convert Shoreway and Marginal/Erieside into a single boulevard
D. Same as C + adding a connection at E 18th St.
E. Land bridge only

 

More info on each concept starting at page 51 in the agenda for their meeting coming up this week:

https://www.noaca.org/home/showpublisheddocument/27406/637783924624587362

 

One cool positive side effect of turning the shoreway into a boulevard is that it opens up a lot of space for the rock and roll Hall of fame expansion. The northwest corner of ninth and the new boulevard looks particularly intriguing.

 

 

Hopefully the city follows through on it's earlier statements to work with the Rock Hall, there is some great opportunity for synchronous development here!

Option D please!  While they're at...let's make dead mans curve a 120 degree angle instead of 90!

If the goal is to connect downtown to the lakefront as much as possible, I like what is probably the least likely option, Option B.  Have the Shoreway merge into Lakeside and remove it.  It would close the gap between downtown and the lakefront more and new development on that land could help the transition to the lake feel less choppy.

 

Clevelanders rarely venture to the other side of town anyway :)

34 minutes ago, Dino said:

If the goal is to connect downtown to the lakefront as much as possible, I like what is probably the least likely option, Option B.  Have the Shoreway merge into Lakeside and remove it.  It would close the gap between downtown and the lakefront more and new development on that land could help the transition to the lake feel less choppy.

 

Clevelanders rarely venture to the other side of town anyway :)

If we somehow, one day, maybe think about routing I-90 to I-271 -> I-480 -> I-80 -> I-90 then that would open up both the lake front and remove a barrier between Downtown and Midtown. 

 

Downtown lakefront development may depend on removing the Shoreway
By Ken Prendergast / January 26, 2022

 

The fate of lakefront development in Cleveland appears to depend on whether local, regional and state policymakers want more traffic and for it to pass through downtown quickly or to have less traffic and for it to travel into the central business district more slowly.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2022/01/26/downtown-lakefront-development-may-depend-on-removing-the-shoreway/

It seems there is a fortuitous set of timely circumstances at work here. 

 

There has been a movement around the country to remove highways that cut through the downtowns of many cities across the US. There is the proposal by the Haslem's to connect the waterfront with the Mall. An idea that has the support of the new mayor and the downtown councilman. Finally, the Main Avenue Bridge is coming to the end of its projected lifetime.

 

On the flipside there is the long-standing tradition of traffic engineers both locally and maybe even more importantly those coming from the state (ODOT) to focus only on the fastest and cheapest way to move cars. There is inertia to deal with. There is the the status-quo. And finally, there is that old bug-abo, lack of funding. 

 

So we're at a cross-roads. We've been here before. We're still here. 

 

I think the only way out of this dilemma is to form a commission (I know that can be a dirty word) that can marshal the resources of those who want change vs. the status quo. This may be the moment when just enough leadership can break through. Having the Mayor, City Council, the Haslem's, perhaps NOACA, the County and RTA/Amtrak might be just enough to force through a project that finally creates a downtown/lakefront that focuses on people and not the movement of cars. 

 

The right kind of leadership with financial backing has been hard to come by in these parts. Gateway was one example of success so maybe a new commission can start by examining how that project was pulled off. It can be done. It just takes the right kind of leadership. Fingers crossed. 

 

 

The biggest impediment may be ODOT, and city leaders incapable of opposing them.

 

I will give the new administration the benefit of doubt until the project takes shape. This can't be dumbed down like the west shoreway project.

Why can't the Shoreway be moved to run along the railroad tracks?  A tunnel can be put under the river and the Main Avenue Bridge removed.  The Cuyahoga River is not that wide.  Here in Fort Lauderdale we have a tunnel under the New River.  Removing the Main Avenue Bridge would open up more land for development and also greatly reduce the cost of road maintenance.

18 minutes ago, TR said:

Why can't the Shoreway be moved to run along the railroad tracks?  A tunnel can be put under the river and the Main Avenue Bridge removed.  The Cuyahoga River is not that wide.  Here in Fort Lauderdale we have a tunnel under the New River.  Removing the Main Avenue Bridge would open up more land for development and also greatly reduce the cost of road maintenance.

 

I'm no engineer, but this could be an impediment:

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Deep beneath Lake Erie is a massive salt mine, stretching from Edgewater Beach to Burke Lakefront Airport and north about 3 miles. Cargill Deicing Technology extracts as much as 4 million tons of salt each year from the maze of tunnels, to sell as far as Minnesota and Massachusetts.

 

https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2017/12/go_under_lake_erie_and_inside.html

So maybe there is already a tunnel they can use.

Not sure if this was posted anywhere else?

 

NOACA wants Cleveland to examine wider ‘land bridge’ concepts for downtown lakefront connection, plus hold a meeting to engage public for the first time

Updated: Jan. 26, 2022, 9:20 p.m. | Published: Jan. 26, 2022, 5:44 p.m.

By Steven Litt, cleveland.com

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio — The Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency, the region’s biggest planning organization, wants the city to think bigger about connecting downtown to the Lake Erie shoreline.

 

Specifically, NOACA wants the city to add at least two new variations to the five it has already proposed for analysis in the formative stages of a $5 million feasibility study.

 

And it wants the city to hold a meeting to gather public comments about all the alternatives under consideration. There have been no such meetings to date, though the project to improve the downtown lakefront could ultimately cost more than $200 million in public money.

 

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2022/01/noaca-wants-city-to-examine-wider-land-bridge-concepts-for-downtown-lakefront-connection-plus-hold-a-meeting-to-engage-public-for-the-first-time.html

On 1/26/2022 at 10:54 AM, marty15 said:

Move it to the East 9th street pier?
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fox8.com/news/i-x-center-getting-rid-of-iconic-ferris-wheel/amp/

 

Please, no.

 

Do not bring political discussion into development threads.  Thank you.

^ FAA might have a problem with a 125' Ferris wheel on E 9th pier.

 

Edited January 28, 20223 yr by LibertyBlvd

1 hour ago, MuRrAy HiLL said:

Not sure if this was posted anywhere else?

 

NOACA wants Cleveland to examine wider ‘land bridge’ concepts for downtown lakefront connection, plus hold a meeting to engage public for the first time

Updated: Jan. 26, 2022, 9:20 p.m. | Published: Jan. 26, 2022, 5:44 p.m.

By Steven Litt, cleveland.com

 

It sounds like NOACA will be just as big an impediment as ODOT. The two additional options NOACA wants Cleveland to study would leave the existing Shoreway in tact. And worse under the guise of protecting pedestrians and cyclists on Lakeside. That stretch of Lakeside between W.3th and E.9th is a ghost town most of the day. It could easily accommodate the trivial extra traffic from people that drive across downtown now on the Shoreway.

9 minutes ago, Mendo said:

 

It sounds like NOACA will be just as big an impediment as ODOT. The two additional options NOACA wants Cleveland to study would leave the existing Shoreway in tact. And worse under the guise of protecting pedestrians and cyclists on Lakeside. That stretch of Lakeside between W.3th and E.9th is a ghost town most of the day. It could easily accommodate the trivial extra traffic from people that drive across downtown now on the Shoreway.

I'm actually glad NOACA is making this pitch, because of ODOT. They're not saying Cleveland has to do their version of the landbridge, just consider it. If ODOT is gonna stop the shoreway removal, wouldn't it be better to have a land bridge and the shoreway instead of no land bridge at all? I'm all for the city's concepts C, D, or E (B looks like it would be a disaster), but I care a whole lot more about having a land bridge than what happens to the shoreway.

11 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

B looks like it would be a disaster

Why would B be a disaster?

I'm curious what exactly is meant by this paragraph.

 

"In addition to reviving the Green Ribbon idea, NOACA wants to study widening the six-lane East Ninth Street bridge that connects downtown to the lakefront and the Shoreway. The bridge could become part of a larger platform that would also cover a portion of the Shoreway between City Hall and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame."

 

It sounds like they are talking about a seperate land bridge? Would this be in place of, or in addition to one coming from the mall? 

 

Also, I want to re-up the idea of greencapping the tops of the parking garages behind the court and city Hall. It would create a green cross for comparatively little cost, plus it would make Willard and Fort Huntington parks more useful. Super quick sketch below.

 

7 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

I'm actually glad NOACA is making this pitch, because of ODOT. They're not saying Cleveland has to do their version of the landbridge, just consider it. If ODOT is gonna stop the shoreway removal, wouldn't it be better to have a land bridge and the shoreway instead of no land bridge at all? I'm all for the city's concepts C, D, or E (B looks like it would be a disaster), but I care a whole lot more about having a land bridge than what happens to the shoreway.

 

I get it's not as flashy, but I consider removing the Shoreway from the W.6 flyover to around E.12th as more important than the land bridge. If the city can leverage the land bridge to bring in funding to redo the Shoreway and Erieside/Marginal Ave, then all the better. Not that I don't love the land bridge concept (I do).

44 minutes ago, Ineffable_Matt said:

Why would B be a disaster?

Routing all of the shoreway's traffic to East 9th then down Lakeside. The overall goal is to have pedestrians be able to go to the lake without crossing a wall of cars. Well, by moving the traffic onto lakeside you are not only creating a traffic disaster for motorists (imagine the left turn lane from lakeside onto E. 9 during rush hour) but also effectively moving the wall of cars onto Lakeside. You're turning Lakeside--a road with heavy pedestrian crossings--into a boulevard that would have easily four to five times as much traffic as it currently does. It's like saying "Let's make a land bridge but then move the shoreway so that it's just south of the land bridge and you have to cross the shoreway to get to the land bridge." I don't get it.

All I have to say is that the Main Avenue bridge is a gem.  I love the views under it, and I love the view from it.  Big city vibes.  It would be a bummer for it to come down.  

27 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

Routing all of the shoreway's traffic to East 9th then down Lakeside. The overall goal is to have pedestrians be able to go to the lake without crossing a wall of cars. Well, by moving the traffic onto lakeside you are not only creating a traffic disaster for motorists (imagine the left turn lane from lakeside onto E. 9 during rush hour) but also effectively moving the wall of cars onto Lakeside. You're turning Lakeside--a road with heavy pedestrian crossings--into a boulevard that would have easily four to five times as much traffic as it currently does. It's like saying "Let's make a land bridge but then move the shoreway so that it's just south of the land bridge and you have to cross the shoreway to get to the land bridge." I don't get it.

I get that, but there are crosswalks, right? And how many lanes is the shoreway compared to Lakeside? I mean, pick any street in Manhattan; it has more traffic than the Shoreway, and people aren't getting mown down left and right.

Edited January 27, 20223 yr by Ineffable_Matt

Yes, l was just about to make the point and gruver best me to it. Love the Main Avenue Bridge driving into the city especially but also it is visually stimulating from below. And as l've said before, it does a great job connecting both sides of the river literally and visually. 

 

I get wanting to make the Shoreway a boulevard but even if that were to occur you still need a way to cross the river. Funneling all that Shoreway traffic to the Detroit Avenue Bridge is not a great idea as things will really back up. I'm not a big car guy. Nevertheless you do have to take into consideration that a permanent traffic slowdown will occur when you replace the seamless movement of cars along the present Bridge/Shoreway and replace it with driving through downtown and across the Detroit bridge. That will piss a lot of people off. 

 

So we will either need to replace or repair the Main Avenue Bridge. I really don't see an alternative. A new landbridge and a boulevard shouldn't impact that. I think there is enough land to connect a boulevard to the bridge. Isn't it possible to connect them without needing the present looong ramp? 

36 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

Routing all of the shoreway's traffic to East 9th then down Lakeside. The overall goal is to have pedestrians be able to go to the lake without crossing a wall of cars. Well, by moving the traffic onto lakeside you are not only creating a traffic disaster for motorists (imagine the left turn lane from lakeside onto E. 9 during rush hour) but also effectively moving the wall of cars onto Lakeside. You're turning Lakeside--a road with heavy pedestrian crossings--into a boulevard that would have easily four to five times as much traffic as it currently does. It's like saying "Let's make a land bridge but then move the shoreway so that it's just south of the land bridge and you have to cross the shoreway to get to the land bridge." I don't get it.

 

The only additional street traffic will be from cars that currently bypass downtown on the Shoreway. That's a fraction of the total trips as most end up downtown anyway. Lakeside in this stretch is underused and could easily handle the extra traffic. There is already more traffic in other parts of downtown and it works perfectly fine.

 

I do agree though combining Erieside and Shoreway into a single pedestrian friendly boulevard is the better option to provide better connectivity for development around the stadium and for the few bypassing downtown. But that means removing the flyover in the Warehouse District and associated on/off ramps, adding better sidewalks, etc.

Edited January 27, 20223 yr by Mendo

Turn the bridge into an elevated park with public elevators/stairs on either end.

Edited January 27, 20223 yr by West153

35 minutes ago, Ineffable_Matt said:

I get that, but there are crosswalks, right? And how many lanes is the shoreway compared to Lakeside? I mean, pick any street in Manhattan; it has more traffic than the Shoreway, and people aren't getting mown down left and right.

If we end up with Manhattan-esque traffic because the population of Cleveland has reached 5 million, then so be it. If we reach Manhattan-esque traffic for any other reason ... I think we've failed somewhere. Just because we don't want to prioritize cars doesn't mean we need to make driving into a living hell, lol.

30 minutes ago, Mendo said:

 

The only additional street traffic will be from cars that currently bypass downtown on the Shoreway. That's a fraction of the total trips as most end up downtown anyway. Lakeside in this stretch is underused and could easily handle the extra traffic.

 

While I have no data to back up my position, my experience driving on Lakeside and driving on the Shoreway (both of which I do on a regular basis) leads me to believe this is not true. The shoreway isn't usually real crowded, but it's also a 60 mph stretch (that's how fast people go regardless of what the speed limit is). If you take those cars and make them go 25 instead, it would seem like a whole lot more of them.

2 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

If we end up with Manhattan-esque traffic because the population of Cleveland has reached 5 million, then so be it. If we reach Manhattan-esque traffic for any other reason ... I think we've failed somewhere. Just because we don't want to prioritize cars doesn't mean we need to make driving into a living hell, lol.

 

Both the Shoreway and Lakeside are wildly overbuilt for the amount of traffic they carry.  While they should do a traffic study, of course, I doubt there would be any serious issue getting to Downtown because of this.  It will make cutting across the Shoreway to get to the westside slower, for sure.  But should that be a priority?

We did a live traffic experiment - it was called "The Winter Soldier". It was a mess.

19 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

If we end up with Manhattan-esque traffic because the population of Cleveland has reached 5 million, then so be it. If we reach Manhattan-esque traffic for any other reason ... I think we've failed somewhere. Just because we don't want to prioritize cars doesn't mean we need to make driving into a living hell, lol.

But your concern was for the pedestrians before. And I countered that they could safely cross Lakeside. 

 

ETA that Lakeside isn't the only east-west street in Downtown. There are multiple routes one could take if the Shoreway were to close. Would they add a few minutes to the commute? Certainly. But we are spoiled in Cleveland with our overbuilt highways. Out of towners LOL at our "rush hour".

Edited January 27, 20223 yr by Ineffable_Matt