1 hour ago, ryanfrazier said:

I would like to see political pressure on Ohio's congressional delegation to move the Coast Guard station.  That piece of land is more suited to develop (location-wise, being on the edge of downtown and across from the Rock Hall), than other parts of the waterfront, including Burke.  

 

Better yet, partner up with the Coast Guard in the grand scheme of mixed use development.  The Coast Guard facility doesn't need to be a completely walled off fortress. A great example of this is the new U.S. Navy offices in San Diego are part of, or arguably even the centerpiece of a huge new waterfront development: 

 

https://www.manchesterpacificgateway.com/video.html

 

 

 

Thanks for posting all of that info @TotalTransit. Very interesting.

5 hours ago, TotalTransit said:

Live form the belly of the beast.

 

Thanks for the pics. 

 

Ideally they would build the boulevard but without the separate port access road. Why have two parallel roads here? It defeats the purpose of building a pedestrian friendly area. 

Edited November 4, 20222 yr by Mendo

 
Is the consultant only going to compare alternatives to Burke Airport "as is?" 
 
I don't think it's possible to get a clear picture unless you also factor in the potential for it to become a better airport. 

Hopefully apart of the economic study they note that Burke directly reduces the economic potential of lakefront properties around it by literally reducing the size of projects due to the height restrictions

Also the planning meeting today didn’t provide anything new, aside from highlighting 16 previous lakefront plans

The director’s closing comments shed more light than anything else what they’re asking out of design firms which I feel is what we’ve already seen out of the haslem’s conceptual renderings

As I feared, a lot of cheer leading with all the key buzz words repeated over and over and a focus on the warm and fuzzy public meetings.  I guess I did get a better understanding regarding who is leading the charge, but rather than feeling good about it, I am concerned that there are so many entities with their sticky finger (and sticky opinions) involved.  In my experience this only slows down the process.  The presenters seemed to recognize this issue and emphasized great coordination between the various bodies and departments, with apparently the Greater Cleveland Partnership being a key leader.

 

As far as concrete information, engineering studies revolving around the transportation aspects of the plan are expected to by completed by the end of 2023.

 

 

Edited November 5, 20222 yr by Htsguy

10 minutes ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

Hopefully apart of the economic study they note that Burke directly reduces the economic potential of lakefront properties around it by literally reducing the size of projects due to the height restrictions

Also, isn't Burke being subsidized by landing fees at CLE?  Closing Burke would eliminate that burden on CLE.

I'm glad these studies are being done, and I'm pretty confident about what they'll find.

 

Burke's chief benefits are (1) saving athletes and executives a 15-minute trip from Hopkins to downtown when they fly in, and (2) hosting a really cool air show once a year.

 

That's it!

 

It does not benefit the community. It's a net negative. The only people who will miss it are the people who've gotten used to using it, and (since it's largely athletes) half of them will be gone in 5 years!

 

I think a good test for land use is "if this entire parcel were a grassy field, would a proposal to use it the way it currently is being used be taken seriously?" For Burke, more than any other piece of land in the entire city, the obvious answer is no! Nobody in their right mind would put an airport there if the land were a blank slate.

 

I simply do not believe that the objections about reliever airports are real obstacles. The city can kick 5 people out of their houses with eminent domain if County needs to be expanded. That's the worst case scenario.

Has there been a study to actually see if Burke costs money or makes money for the city? Start there. If it is net negative then replacing it is a no-brainer. If it is net positive how much net positive? Then compare Burke's net positive with whatever income a different kind of usage could generate.

 

Because Burke is built on landfill remediation to build anything substantial could be pretty expensive. Low rise buildings (some combination of residential and business/entertainment) might be the best use. UNLESS it was turned into a park. That would be the easiest and cheaper version of converting it. If the ultimate decision is a park I vote for using the bulk of the land for a forest with trails running through and around it. Something like Stanly Park in Vancouver. That is a great use of land in an urban setting. An urban forest. Beautiful. We are supposed to be the forest city after all.

32 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

I'm glad these studies are being done, and I'm pretty confident about what they'll find.

 

Burke's chief benefits are (1) saving athletes and executives a 15-minute trip from Hopkins to downtown when they fly in, and (2) hosting a really cool air show once a year.

 

That's it!

 

 

That's not correct. Burke is also used for flying in organs for transplant at Cleveland Clinic. It used to be used by the Federal Reserve for the transportation of documents, checks and other cargo. Maybe it still does?

 

And I've heard business executives say how much they like having Burke next to downtown and that it's a big selling point to them for staying downtown.

 

That said, I would like to see Burke closed. But closing it is not easy or cheap without having another airport in Greater Cleveland, other than Hopkins, offering the runway lengths, terminal space, tarmac area, etc that Burke has. And adding fill dirt and/or cleaning up all of the toxic garbage dumped there to turn it into a park or residential will take a massive investment.

 

Quote

 

6 minutes ago, cadmen said:
Has there been a study to actually see if Burke costs money or makes money for the city? Start there. If it is net negative then replacing it is a no-brainer. If it is net positive how much net positive? Then compare Burke's net positive with whatever income a different kind of usage could generate.


Because Burke is built on landfill remediation to build anything substantial could be pretty expensive. Low rise buildings (some combination of residential and business/entertainment) might be the best use. UNLESS it was turned into a park. That would be the easiest and cheaper version of converting it. If the ultimate decision is a park I vote for using the bulk of the land for a forest with trails running through and around it. Something like Stanly Park in Vancouver. That is a great use of land in an urban setting. An urban forest. Beautiful. We are supposed to be the forest city after all.

 

 

The city has reported in its financial documents that it costs $2 million more per year to operate Burke than it takes in in revenues.

 

 

 

9 minutes ago, KJP said:

It used to be used by the Federal Reserve for the transportation of documents, checks and other cargo. Maybe it still does?

I believe that is done electronically now.

cuyahoga county airport in Richmond heights is 5100' 

burke is 6200'

 

richmond airport has the ability to extend the runway thousand feet in either direction (across richmond, or into lake county)

 

richmond heights is less than 10 minutes farther away from cleveland clinic than burke, by helicopter it's a 2 minute difference 

richmond is only 20 minutes away from downtown, burke still requires a quick taxi 

richmond is closer to the 271 corridor and Amazons

 

it's really a no brainer to pose this question to the county (and lake county) and make a regional push toward expanding and utilizing richmond heights airport. unless you live in richmond heights. 

 

anyways, renderings are floating around for the proposed event facility on north marginal and are really cool. i'm surprised they haven't been published anywhere yet.

 

Edited November 4, 20222 yr by MrR

I'd be down to close burk if a major project/developer were lined up. I don't want to shut it down based only on the assumption that 'of course people would want to build on it - its by the lake'

If Burke is ever closed, my preference would be for a majority of the land to go to the Metroparks. There are plenty of parking lots and underutilized neighborhoods to be developed, but an opportunity for a large downtown/downtown adjacent park won't ever come again. If this ever closes, I'm going all in on making it Cleveland's version of Grant Park (just with more trees)!

5 minutes ago, Ethan said:

If Burke is ever closed, my preference would be for a majority of the land to go to the Metroparks. There are plenty of parking lots and underutilized neighborhoods to be developed, but an opportunity for a large downtown/downtown adjacent park won't ever come again. If this ever closes, I'm going all in on making it Cleveland's version of Grant Park (just with more trees)!

Ya I agree. Just make it a full blown park with maybe a major outdoor concert pavilion. 

People love that Meigs Field on Chicago's lakefront was bulldozed and turned into public spaces/venues.  Open land, trees, concert venue, walkways and waterfront accessible for all.

Anyone know much much economic impact the CART/Indycar races brought to Cleveland? 

 

I remember reading the race generated around $50M to Detroit each year. Anyhow the last I heard of any serious mention of bringing the event back to Burke was 2015. Crickets since then. 

Edited November 4, 20222 yr by surfohio

 

16 minutes ago, surfohio said:

Anyone know much much economic impact the CART/Indycar races brought to Cleveland? 

 

I remember reading the race generated around $50M to Detroit each year. Anyhow the last I heard of any serious mention of bringing the event back to Burke was 2015. Crickets since then. 

Personally, I found the car racing at Burke to be rather boring. I prefer seeing it on city streets like they do in Detroit and Toronto. Perhaps it could be done in downtown Cleveland.

23 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

 

Personally, I found the car racing at Burke to be rather boring. I prefer seeing it on city streets like they do in Detroit and Toronto. Perhaps it could be done in downtown Cleveland.

 

Oh I loved the Grand Prix. But yes it would be really cool to see it downtown. For many years it was good to see blue Lake Erie on national television. It was a great look for the city. 

2 hours ago, LibertyBlvd said:

 

Personally, I found the car racing at Burke to be rather boring. I prefer seeing it on city streets like they do in Detroit and Toronto. Perhaps it could be done in downtown Cleveland.

 

The streets are plenty wide for this.... 

9 hours ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

Hopefully apart of the economic study they note that Burke directly reduces the economic potential of lakefront properties around it by literally reducing the size of projects due to the height restrictions

I hear this complaint about Burke imposing height restrictions oft repeated.  The only parcel I could see being affected is the parking lot immediately north of the stadium, and even then it would probably only affect the end of 24L/6R, which is only used by flight training schools typically anyway.   24R/6L RSA is well clear of any buildable land, and the current obstacle departure procedures for Burke in IFR conditions already accounts for the stadium and E&Y building where they are.  

5 hours ago, MrR said:

richmond airport has the ability to extend the runway thousand feet in either direction (across richmond, or into lake county)

They tried for years and the NIMBYS shut down any further expansion of runways at KCGF. 

8 hours ago, LlamaLawyer said:

I'm glad these studies are being done, and I'm pretty confident about what they'll find.

 

Burke's chief benefits are (1) saving athletes and executives a 15-minute trip from Hopkins to downtown when they fly in, and (2) hosting a really cool air show once a year.

 

That's it!

 

It does not benefit the community. It's a net negative. The only people who will miss it are the people who've gotten used to using it, and (since it's largely athletes) half of them will be gone in 5 years!

 

I think a good test for land use is "if this entire parcel were a grassy field, would a proposal to use it the way it currently is being used be taken seriously?" For Burke, more than any other piece of land in the entire city, the obvious answer is no! Nobody in their right mind would put an airport there if the land were a blank slate.

 

I simply do not believe that the objections about reliever airports are real obstacles. The city can kick 5 people out of their houses with eminent domain if County needs to be expanded. That's the worst case scenario.

 

Burke is also home to air ambulance operations for Cleveland Clinic. 

 

County airport runways cannot be expanded.  NIMBYs already put a stop to that years ago. 

4 hours ago, jbdad2 said:

People love that Meigs Field on Chicago's lakefront was bulldozed and turned into public spaces/venues.  Open land, trees, concert venue, walkways and waterfront accessible for all.

Meigs field was 75 acres built next to one of the most densely populated central business districts in the country. 

Burke is 450 acres in a city that has spent the last 30 years waiting to build something on its main public square, and has an excess of empty land and surface lots throughout the city.  

Has there been a study to actually see if Burke costs money or makes money for the city? Start there. If it is net negative then replacing it is a no-brainer. If it is net positive how much net positive? Then compare Burke's net positive with whatever income a different kind of usage could generate.
 
Because Burke is built on landfill remediation to build anything substantial could be pretty expensive. Low rise buildings (some combination of residential and business/entertainment) might be the best use. UNLESS it was turned into a park. That would be the easiest and cheaper version of converting it. If the ultimate decision is a park I vote for using the bulk of the land for a forest with trails running through and around it. Something like Stanly Park in Vancouver. That is a great use of land in an urban setting. An urban forest. Beautiful. We are supposed to be the forest city after all.

A Cleveland version on Chicago’s Navy Pier would be fantastic here. I do feel like any closing and redevelopment of Burke would need to include more access points for pedestrians. It’s kind of isolated and limited right now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1 hour ago, MyPhoneDead said:

I do feel like any closing and redevelopment of Burke would need to include more access points for pedestrians. It’s kind of isolated and limited right now.

A pedestrian bridge (or two) over the shoreway from the muni lot would provide additional access.

10 hours ago, LibertyBlvd said:

A pedestrian bridge (or two) over the shoreway from the muni lot would provide additional access.

This is exactly what I was thinking.

13 hours ago, Cleburger said:

 

Burke is also home to air ambulance operations for Cleveland Clinic. 

 

County airport runways cannot be expanded.  NIMBYs already put a stop to that years ago. 

I forgot about air ambulance, which is important, but as others have pointed out, County is a similar distance from the Clinic.

 

And I hear you on the NIMBYs, but if the county decides to close Burke and expand County as result, a few homeowners won't stop it any more than Bobby George will stop Irishtown Bend Park from being built.

 

People have gotten used to using Burke for certain things, but that doesn't mean Burke is actually a good use of land. It's just people expect it. There's nothing about the land that makes it inherently good for an airport except for the fact that an airport is already there. And it's a small enough airport that uses can be replaced by other airports nearby with very minor modifications. Boston Logan is terribly located and it's so big that I can't fathom how it could be moved. But there are still lots of people who seriously want to relocate Boston Logan. This is an opportunity on the same scale, but with far, far, far fewer opportunity costs. 99% of what Burke does would just be absorbed by Hopkins with nothing more than a grumble. And the 1% is just a matter of thinking through problems one by one, which is what I assume this study will be looking at.

 

My main point is just that, when push comes to shove, I'm very confident there will be a solution for every potential issue with demo-ing Burke. The number of people who will be seriously inconvenienced by the move is vanishingly small. Will a bunch of athletes and execs be PO'ed that they've gotta use Hopkins? Sure. Welcome to basically every large city where there isn't an airport right downtown. I just find all of these critiques to be the equivalent of "But if that parking lot goes away, where will we park for Cavs games?" or "But if that parking lot goes away where will we hold our annual festival?" People will miss it when it's gone because they were used to it, but that will fade quickly. Just like people miss parking lots when they're gone but nobody in their right mind looks at a vibrant building and thinks "man, I wish that was a parking lot so I could park easier," people will initially miss Burke when it's gone, but after a few years, nobody would think "man, I wish we had an airport right there."

Edited November 5, 20222 yr by LlamaLawyer

On 11/3/2022 at 6:08 PM, Cleburger said:

I see it as a better airport if the city actually uses it to generate economic activity in the city of Cleveland.   

 

Flexjet is building their worldwide HQ at CGF and I guarantee you no one from the city of Cleveland even bothered to call them to try to move them downtown.   That would have generated a huge amount of interest by other aviation businesses in looking at BKL.  

 

Well the administration that blew off Pixar couldn't be expected to be proactive....

bein a little cavalier calling people nimbys if they don't want a high traffic commercial airport in their neighborhood 

On 11/3/2022 at 5:33 PM, TotalTransit said:

Live form the belly of the beast. 

It would have been nice to see a plan with the shoreway exit/entrance ramps removed at E 9th and a new access point added to the east, perhaps at E 18th. Doing so would make E 9th more pedestrian friendly and might eliminate the need for a land bridge. It would free up some land to possibly relocate the Amtrak station to a more easily accessible location closer to E 9th and integrated with the RTA station.  Extending E 18th north would provide additional access to the Burke property once it is redeveloped.

 

Edited November 7, 20222 yr by LibertyBlvd

3 hours ago, LlamaLawyer said:

Welcome to basically every large city where there isn't an airport right downtown. 

But this is why I think Burke should be a part of the conversation.  It shouldn't just be "what else can we do with Burke?"   There should also be a conversation about what could be done if Burke does stay to make it better.    I mentioned upthread that Flexjet was building a brand new headquarters at CGF.   I count this as a huge missed opportunity for the city of Cleveland to put one of their aviation assets into the economic development mix.   It most certainly would have attracted more jobs and development.  

 

We should also not discount that viable public transport by air is going to be a thing of the very near future.   The FAA isn't likely to allow flying Uber cars to take off and land from city streets anytime soon, but Cleveland with its downtown airport could be a test bed for this soft of technology.  

50 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

But this is why I think Burke should be a part of the conversation.  It shouldn't just be "what else can we do with Burke?"   There should also be a conversation about what could be done if Burke does stay to make it better.    I mentioned upthread that Flexjet was building a brand new headquarters at CGF.   I count this as a huge missed opportunity for the city of Cleveland to put one of their aviation assets into the economic development mix.   It most certainly would have attracted more jobs and development.  

 

We should also not discount that viable public transport by air is going to be a thing of the very near future.   The FAA isn't likely to allow flying Uber cars to take off and land from city streets anytime soon, but Cleveland with its downtown airport could be a test bed for this soft of technology.  

 

If this public transport by air needs to take off and land at airports, what makes it any different than currently existing helicopters and small planes?

1 hour ago, Cleburger said:

 

We should also not discount that viable public transport by air is going to be a thing of the very near future.   The FAA isn't likely to allow flying Uber cars to take off and land from city streets anytime soon, but Cleveland with its downtown airport could be a test bed for this soft of technology.  

This would be better at Hopkins too though. Hopkins is already one of only a few U.S. airports with heavy rail that goes right to downtown. Burke is a little more connected to downtown, but it’s actually easier to get from Hopkins to Ohio City or University Circle. 

1 hour ago, X said:

 

If this public transport by air needs to take off and land at airports, what makes it any different than currently existing helicopters and small planes?

They could land at BKL, and drive their passenger to an address downtown in a seamless trip.  

On 11/3/2022 at 6:08 PM, Cleburger said:

Flexjet is building their worldwide HQ at CGF and I guarantee you no one from the city of Cleveland even bothered to call them to try to move them downtown.

Not to burst any bubbles, but there's hardly an incentive that could have been provided to Flexjet to move them into the city save for only free land, free materials, an unlimited tax-break and city-paid construction labor. The board at Flexjet and their clientele are predominantly from the east side, and prefer the county airport to any other. The only people there that would have liked Flexjet to move farther west are the few guys in maintenance and OPS that live in Lakewood and Rocky River, who have little to no sway over the company. I'm not speaking out of my rear end, I worked there for quite a few years.

Now, that's not to say the City of Cleveland shouldn't have put more effort into establishing Burke as a regional center for the last 75 years, but Flexjet was not up for grabs. The only other city that Flexjet considered moving their legal headquarters to was Teterboro, NJ and, briefly, Naples, FL, where they have offices. That being said, between the county airport and Hopkins, it's not bad for the city to be exploring other options for land use. They just need to do honest due diligence first. 

Seeing a bunch of "Save Our Park" yard signs on the Lakeshore Blvd section of Shore Acres.   I'd say a majority of the houses on that section of Lakeshore right around the 152nd bend.  I know that the association just spent a decent amount of money on it, it's neighborhood people only, and I'm guessing they are trying to keep the path out.

Edited November 7, 20222 yr by E Rocc

Zelma George Recreation Center North Coast Connector Listening Session

So a friend reports that, last week, there was a drilling rig on the Amtrak station platform along the tracks drilling several holes. It was just along the platform -- nowhere else. But he said there was a survey crew working around the entire Amtrak station area. Presumably this was related to the effort to build the land bridge?

Loved this recent tweet of yours @KJP

 

 

16 hours ago, snakebite said:

Loved this recent tweet of yours @KJP

 

 

We already have the highway by the lake as shown on the right.  We just need the highrises south of I-90 to the east of downtown -- how is that an argument for or against Burke?

43 minutes ago, Foraker said:

We already have the highway by the lake as shown on the right.  We just need the highrises south of I-90 to the east of downtown -- how is that an argument for or against Burke?

 

I'm not sure everyone realizes how cold and windy the eastern lakeshore gets, since the shoreline starts moving SW-NE around Edgewater.  There are high rises in the Euclid Beach area and in Euclid, they just aren't high end.

2 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

I'm not sure everyone realizes how cold and windy the eastern lakeshore gets, since the shoreline starts moving SW-NE around Edgewater.  There are high rises in the Euclid Beach area and in Euclid, they just aren't high end.

Colder than Chicago?

35 minutes ago, Henke said:

Colder than Chicago?

Chicago is actually more on the west side of Lake Michigan. So, the majority of the winds are not coming off the lake unlike on the east side of Cleveland

It's too bad Moses Cleaveland didn't settle a little more to the west, maybe around Vermilion. I don't think they get as much lake effect snow.

56 minutes ago, dski44 said:

Chicago is actually more on the west side of Lake Michigan. So, the majority of the winds are not coming off the lake unlike on the east side of Cleveland

 

Milwaukee even more so.    Cleveland has a windier downtown than "The Windy City".

37 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

It's too bad Moses Cleaveland didn't settle a little more to the west, maybe around Vermilion. I don't think they get as much lake effect snow.

 

Well the river was there.

35 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

Milwaukee even more so.    Cleveland has a windier downtown than "The Windy City".

This goes back to the origination of the nickname "Windy City," which was named for the local machine politicians moving a lot of hot air, and not for the local weather patterns.  

 

Downtown Lakefront buildings no longer for sale

By Ken Prendergast / November 17, 2022

 

Two very visible buildings at downtown Cleveland’s North Coast Harbor that were listed for sale over the past year were just taken off the market this week by owner Cumberland Development LLC. There are several reasons why the Harbor Verandas mixed-use building and the Nuevo Modern Mexican & Tequila Bar are being retained. But one of them is because of the fate of the nearby Burke Lakefront Airport could cause the value of the site to rise in the future.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2022/11/17/downtown-lakefront-buildings-no-longer-for-sale/

So the FAA wanted to know how high a volleyball would go. Really?? I'm thinking if a plane is flying that low its got way more problems than a volleyball. 

 

Another example of Burke impeding lakefront growth. Is having a small underutilized lakefront airport worth all the restrictions on...uh, pretty much any and everything Cleveland would want to do down there. Other cities would kill for lakefront but the only thing being killed here is lakefront development.