So it’s small ball vs. Field of Dreams, eh? 
Maybe both are somewhat apropos. 
 

I like the idea of preparing opportunities  for a future that’s still unwritten. Who would’ve believed 30 (or maybe even 20 years ago) that in 2023 downtown Cleveland would be one of the hot residential  markets in the Midwest? 
 

Edited March 2, 20232 yr by CleveFan

Just talked to someone who moved to the area 4 months ago from California. Seemed to have never heard of Lake Erie ("Is that in downtown?")

 

I will never understand some people's inability to take a look at a map. But maybe expanding the downtown core to the lake would finally make it more obvious to visitors/outsiders that Cleveland sits on a major body of water.

^I have a similar story from about 20 years ago with an engineering expert I was dealing with who was based in New York.  He was coming into Cleveland for a case I was handling.  When he was here we were waking down St. Clair near the mall and he asked me what that body of water was pointing to the lake.  I assumed this guy was college education so I was somewhat taken aback.  I mean I have never been to Milwaukee in my life but I know it is on Lake Michigan.  I guess I should not have been surprised as, when we were talking on the phone before his arrival, he asked "Where should I fly into, Cincinnati?"  I said yes if he didn't then mind driving 5 hours.

While the draft was here I was blown away by the amount of people that thought it was the ocean

16 hours ago, marty15 said:

Why is the group thought steer towards we can only have one developer for that whole area? Once the stadium is gone, how about the city lay out a street grid and install the corresponding infrastructure. Once that’s done, sell parcel at a time to whichever developer that has a project they want to deliver that fits the master plan. You know, like an actual city. 

 

Why the constant make or break with one chosen developer? 

 

SimCity2000 strategy, I (and my cities) dig it. I don't think Burke will allow for construction of Arcos though...

5 hours ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

While the draft was here I was blown away by the amount of people that thought it was the ocean

 

Start saying "Erie", and see how many realize that's a lake, and how many think that its the Erie Ocean.

1 hour ago, X said:

 

Start saying "Erie", and see how many realize that's a lake, and how many think that it’s the Erie Ocean.

It’s definitely funny how people can’t grasp that it’s a lake, but at the same time, they’ve probably never seen a lake anywhere near that big.

Edited March 2, 20232 yr by Ineffable_Matt

I can't tell you how many people I've encountered who had long assumed that "the lake" Cleveland is by was a duck pond and not practically an inland sea.

Then when they see for themselves how big the lake is they ask "Why doesn't Cleveland advertise this lake more?" I just tell them I'd been asking myself that same question for most of my adult life.

Edited March 2, 20232 yr by RoabeArt
a word

Imagine how so many more people would be impressed by that inland sea- like they were at the NFL draft - if downtown  was connected right to its shore - with no stadium  or ( dare I say it) airport to block full access…,

Edited March 3, 20232 yr by CleveFan

When I attended the University of Akron in the 80s, there were others living in the dorm, from northern Ohio, who had no idea you couldn't see all the way across Lake Erie from Cleveland. It must be an issue of perspective. To those of us who grew up on Lake Erie or other Great Lakes, we see a lake as a very large body of water. What inland folks call "lakes" are what we call "ponds".

9 minutes ago, TMart said:

When I attended the University of Akron in the 80s, there were others living in the dorm, from northern Ohio, who had no idea you couldn't see all the way across Lake Erie from Cleveland. It must be an issue of perspective. To those of us who grew up on Lake Erie or other Great Lakes, we see a lake as a very large body of water. What inland folks call "lakes" are what we call "ponds".

I’ve brought multiple friends from out of town to Bar 32 in the Hilton. Every time. “You can’t see the other side!”

 

Every time.

8 hours ago, marty15 said:

I’ve brought multiple friends from out of town to Bar 32 in the Hilton. Every time. “You can’t see the other side!”

 

Every time.

LOL, except when there is that wierd atmospheric inversion.  I never experienced it, when I lived in Shoregate Towers.

When I lived in Hawaii a couple decades ago, a friend of mine who was from New York compared the beaches in the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean.  He then told me that I'm not used to seeing beaches in Cleveland.  😒

The ignorance isn't just about Lake Erie but a general ignorance of geography in general that Americans display. We like to think we're special (American exceptionalism) but in reality we're often quite clueless in so many areas.

11 hours ago, marty15 said:

I’ve brought multiple friends from out of town to Bar 32 in the Hilton. Every time. “You can’t see the other side!”

 

Every time.

 

I took my friends from Atlanta there last summer - they spent the rest of their time there Googling "are the Great Lakes actually seas?"

1 minute ago, YABO713 said:

 

I took my friends from Atlanta there last summer - they spent the rest of their time there Googling "are the Great Lakes actually seas?"

I believe Toledo is the only city that refers to it as a sea, and I always liked that. 

41 minutes ago, marty15 said:

I believe Toledo is the only city that refers to it as a sea, and I always liked that. 

 

If we took more of English from German, it would be "Eriesee".  It's the French who call the same body of water a "lac". Lac Geneva = Genfersee

 

Back on topic, wouldn't the teardown of First Energy Stadium actually enhance the value of the total site for development?  I've always thought the relatively small strip of land north of the stadium was a deterrent to grander plans.

19 minutes ago, Dougal said:

Back on topic, wouldn't the teardown of First Energy Stadium actually enhance the value of the total site for development?  I've always thought the relatively small strip of land north of the stadium was a deterrent to grander plans.

 

I don't think the stadium is stopping anything, but rather it's the uncertainty. That goes for Burke height restrictions as well. 

Right, uncertainly about the stadium, Burke and the shoreway. It seems like it would be silly to develop anything significant in that area until the uncertainty is resolved.

 

Edited March 3, 20232 yr by LibertyBlvd

I guess. there has been a stadium at that site for a hundred years

1 hour ago, surfohio said:

 

I don't think the stadium is stopping anything, but rather it's the uncertainty. That goes for Burke height restrictions as well. 

I feel like the Browns and a new stadium could be the impetus for other things the denizens of this forum desire...new Amtrak station, land bridge and lakefront access.   We should all be pushing for the synergy.  

4 hours ago, Whipjacka said:

I guess. there has been a stadium at that site for a hundred years

 

Google search "Great Lakes Exposition" and see what used to be around the stadium...at least for a bit :-) 

On 3/2/2023 at 8:41 AM, Htsguy said:

^I have a similar story from about 20 years ago with an engineering expert I was dealing with who was based in New York.  He was coming into Cleveland for a case I was handling.  When he was here we were waking down St. Clair near the mall and he asked me what that body of water was pointing to the lake.  I assumed this guy was college education so I was somewhat taken aback.  I mean I have never been to Milwaukee in my life but I know it is on Lake Michigan.  I guess I should not have been surprised as, when we were talking on the phone before his arrival, he asked "Where should I fly into, Cincinnati?"  I said yes if he didn't then mind driving 5 hours.

NYC people are kinda dumb with geography.  They think Ohio borders Idaho or something.  They seem insulted when you tell them the states are only 39 miles apart.

I love all the energy and thought processes for what could be. Yes, freeing this land for lakefront development would/will be amazing. Same for the Burke land... but then what? It's not like we are out of space for development (redevelopment). We have parking lots in the city center. We have vacant buildings in the city center. I'd prefer the focus to continue on building that out and when it's maxed out, the focus moves toward the aforementioned areas. We need a core. We don't need disparate areas that are not connected. 

Agreed. Let's first focus on getting those surface lots and rickety parking garages in the CBD developed before putting up towers on the perimeter. Euclid Avenue is looking so much better and more energized with the repurposed May Company, Schofield and AmeriTrust buildings as well as the addition of Beacon, Lumen and now City Club.  I think the next area to be addressed should be the available parcels in the Prospect/Huron/Bolivar triangle between Ontario and E 14th.  That is the part of downtown many visitors see when they are attending an event at Progressive Field or Rocket Mortgage Fieldhouse.  Also the parcels surrounding the SHW complex need to be addressed once that project is completed.

 

As for the lakefront, I would prefer to see it developed for recreational and entertainment purposes. Some suggestions include a world class aquarium, marina, concert pavilion, walking/biking trails, dog park, skating/ice rink, gardens (Donald Gray 2.0), maybe even a small amusement park or at least a Ferris wheel. 

 

Edited March 8, 20232 yr by LibertyBlvd

hip hip...

metro parks could take over Gordon park south of shoreway...  I love this idea...  when I would see posts about turning burke into a park I would think, where is the money to pay the FAA, and there is a big underused park a few miles east...  🤔

 

https://www-cleveland-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.cleveland.com/metro/2023/03/cleveland-looks-to-lease-rest-of-gordon-park-to-metroparks.html?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&outputType=amp&usqp=mq331AQGsAEggAID#amp_tf=From %1%24s&aoh=16784863092984&csi=0&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cleveland.com%2Fmetro%2F2023%2F03%2Fcleveland-looks-to-lease-rest-of-gordon-park-to-metroparks.html

Here’s an idea. Should the stadium relocate elsewhere, and being that all that land is formerly water, why not bring back some water? Remove large sections of it. Create more inlets, harbors, and waterways. I think it’d be a much more appealing and developable site instead just being a vast open wasteland. 

Edited March 14, 20232 yr by marty15

soooo...  canals behind or in front of houses and a dry dock for each house...  or am I way off..??

Just now, lockdog said:

soooo...  canals behind or in front of houses and a dry dock for each house...  or am I way off..??

I like where your heads at

12 minutes ago, marty15 said:

Here’s an idea. Should the stadium relocate elsewhere, and being that all that land is formerly water, why not bring back some water? Remove large sections of it. Create more inlets, harbors, and waterways. I think it’d be a much more appealing and developable site instead just being a vast open wasteland. 

Kind of like Vermilion Lagoons? 

 

http://www.vermilionlagoons.net/

Just now, LibertyBlvd said:

Kind of like Vermilion Lagoons? 

 

http://www.vermilionlagoons.net/

But a lot more dense

Hate to be a negative Nancy, but if you want to live on a world class waterfront city you have to move elsewhere. We are 20 years into the lakefront plan and we have......drumrolll....a Mexican restaurant and low rise residential to show for it. 

 

Cleveland's waterfront is all about then next 20-50 years. Hoping for the best, but there's just no predicting what's going on here. It's truly chaotic, the "momentum" for change is just continually underwhelming. The land bridge is a great idea but should've happened years ago. Today there's no real progress beyond the Rock Hall and the Science Center, which are terribly designed for their location. So we've had just a lot of ideas and guessing where the money's gonna come from and what's going to happen next. 

 

Someone please chime in and make us feel better about the future. Please. I'm done with all of it. 

There's only two choices: I can be a part of the solution or I can be a part of the problem. There is no neutral when it comes to our community.

 

@KJPHow crucial is the rail connection to the lakefront port facilities east of the river mouth these days?  Any idea if there are items that can't be transferred from ship to truck to rail if need be?

 

I understand surf's impatience, but most of the lakefront plans to date have all been pretty bad, IMHO. Some are just meaningless long range pretty picture making and others have been unremarkable (which is OK!) plans for isolated little development pockets that still turned out to be too ambitious. The Haslam's land bridge is, IMHO, the worst of both types and I hope current thinking kills it off completely.

 

FWIW, here's my longrange watefront plan:

1. Near-term, focus more on the riverfront which is much more interesting/distinctive, connected to existing development, and needs planning help before it gets gobbled up by dull parking facilities with attached Texas donut apartment buildings
2. Close Burke
3. Move the downtown portion of the port to Burke
4. Trade land at Burke to Ontario stone and any other private riverfront aggregate shipper/processor downriver form the Innerbelt or West third
5. Remove the Downtown portion of the Shoreway
6. Forget about the dumb land bridge
7. Slowly incorporate the downtown lakefront into downtown through modest pedestrian bridges and mixed use development north of the railroad tracks, plan a street grid/transit/bike network and let the parcels get developed over years as demand for (mostly) unsubsidized projects dictates

 

4 minutes ago, StapHanger said:

 

@KJPHow crucial is the rail connection to the lakefront port facilities east of the river mouth these days?  Any idea if there are items that can't be transferred from ship to truck to rail if need be?

 

I understand surf's impatience, but most of the lakefront plans to date have all been pretty bad, IMHO. Some are just meaningless long range pretty picture making and others have been unremarkable (which is OK!) plans for isolated little development pockets that still turned out to be too ambitious. The Haslam's land bridge is, IMHO, the worst of both types and I hope current thinking kills it off completely.

 

FWIW, here's my longrange watefront plan:

1. Near-term, focus more on the riverfront which is much more interesting/distinctive, connected to existing development, and needs planning help before it gets gobbled up by dull parking facilities with attached Texas donut apartment buildings
2. Close Burke
3. Move the downtown portion of the port to Burke
4. Trade land at Burke to Ontario stone and any other private riverfront aggregate shipper/processor downriver form the Innerbelt or West third
5. Remove the Downtown portion of the Shoreway
6. Forget about the dumb land bridge
7. Slowly incorporate the downtown lakefront into downtown through modest pedestrian bridges and mixed use development north of the railroad tracks, plan a street grid/transit/bike network and let the parcels get developed over years as demand for (mostly) unsubsidized projects dictates

 

Left to our own devices, it would take until we are all dead and gone to fully realize just #1.  

 

Short of this, I feel like a new Browns stadium is our best chance for a game changing lakefront development of any magnitude.   The NFL and Browns are stakeholders with pockets deep enough to gain significant short-term traction.  

I am hoping #2 happens in my lifetime.  Burke is an underutilized airport and a waste of lakefront property. It is also an impediment to development on both sides. CAK can be designated as a reliever for CLE if necessary.

 

I am starting to agree with #6.  Perhaps a better idea would be to basically leave the shoreway as-is, but remove the entrance/exit ramps at E 9th.  This would allow for wider sidewalks and make E 9th much more pedestrian friendly. If needed, a new shoreway access point could be added to the east, perhaps at or near E 18th.  This would alleviate the need for #5, which would be a rather expensive project. And I'm not sure what it would accomplish as there would still be rail tracks separating downtown from the lakefront.

 

Edited March 16, 20232 yr by LibertyBlvd

I'm still massively pro land bridge. Even if we remove the shoreway you still have to deal with the railroad tracks. (6 tracks!) We also have three malls going to nowhere. A landbridge solves both of these problems in one stroke, while also creating a pedestrian "green corridor" from PS, our main transit hub, and to our strongest tourist draw.

 

This project also has a lot of synergy with the riverfront proposal as both are creating pedestrian corridors from PS to the water. Building both doubles the usefulness of this "green corridor." 

 

I guess in theory you achieve the same goal with a pedestrian bridge, but in the same way as bus rapid transit achieves the same goal as a subway. Sometimes it's worth it to pull the lever for the bigger, better solution. 

1 hour ago, StapHanger said:

 

@KJPHow crucial is the rail connection to the lakefront port facilities east of the river mouth these days?  Any idea if there are items that can't be transferred from ship to truck to rail if need be?

 

I understand surf's impatience, but most of the lakefront plans to date have all been pretty bad, IMHO. Some are just meaningless long range pretty picture making and others have been unremarkable (which is OK!) plans for isolated little development pockets that still turned out to be too ambitious. The Haslam's land bridge is, IMHO, the worst of both types and I hope current thinking kills it off completely.

 

FWIW, here's my longrange watefront plan:

1. Near-term, focus more on the riverfront which is much more interesting/distinctive, connected to existing development, and needs planning help before it gets gobbled up by dull parking facilities with attached Texas donut apartment buildings
2. Close Burke
3. Move the downtown portion of the port to Burke
4. Trade land at Burke to Ontario stone and any other private riverfront aggregate shipper/processor downriver form the Innerbelt or West third
5. Remove the Downtown portion of the Shoreway
6. Forget about the dumb land bridge
7. Slowly incorporate the downtown lakefront into downtown through modest pedestrian bridges and mixed use development north of the railroad tracks, plan a street grid/transit/bike network and let the parcels get developed over years as demand for (mostly) unsubsidized projects dictates

 

 

The rail connection is pretty crucial. The Port recently built a rail loop within the port ground to improve the flexibility of the port's rail operations. There is a rail infrastructure improvement that could further improve rail access to the existing port and allow more than one passenger train to serve Cleveland's Amtrak station at one time. Believe it or not, two or three Amtrak trains show up within minutes of each other at Cleveland on many nights, forcing them to wait outside the station on the mainline and delaying freight traffic. Amtrak expansion at Cleveland would require an investment that would also help the existing port site.

 

I like your list of proposed lakefront improvements @StapHanger. But if you build an intermodal transportation center over the tracks, why not incorporate a green roof onto it, as an extension of the Malls? With that, you get a land bridge.

Maybe a singular coordinated lakefront plan is  not the answer -we’ve  seen what those plans have produced in the last half century.  Yes, have a coordinated vision but allow for private enterprises to begin having opportunities that are “in line”  with “the big plan”.  To quote the late Great Johnny Cash - build it one piece at a time .   
 

Just double down  on incentives and less regulated opportunities for development.  
 

If we can make the right strategic decisions, that will be a big part of the battle.

 

Key decisions to make IMO- relocate the stadium opening the entire parcel for development and close Burke to open a huge land opportunity. 
 

Establish and maintain a pro-growth and a business-friendly culture that will be highly motivated to build.  Seek state and federal assistance wherever possible to build  key access roads  and begin whatever environmental and infrastructural steps are prerequisite- and all the unsexy legal hurdles. 
 

And say what you will about the Haslams - at least they tried to create a new vision for the lakefront - A compelling new “vision” like Bedrock presented for the riverfront might be important to create a sense of the long- term potential and possibilities for a new generation that will live into the late 21st century. 
 

We all love this town - and I think we mostly agree that a thriving waterfront will be the key to Cleveland reemerging as a key international  city in decades to come - most of us won’t be here to see that - but we’ll know if the foundation for future prosperity has been created or if it’s still beyond the scope of our childrens’ lives. 

Edited March 14, 20232 yr by CleveFan

13 minutes ago, CleveFan said:

Maybe a singular coordinated lakefront plan is  not the answer -we’ve  seen what those plans have produced in the last half century.  Yes, have a coordinated vision but allow for private enterprises to begin having opportunities that are “in line”  with “the big plan”.  To quote the late Great Johnny Cash - build it one piece at a time .   
 

Just double down  on incentives and less regulated opportunities for development.  
 

If we can make the right strategic decisions, that will be a big part of the battle.

 

Key decisions to make IMO- relocate the stadium opening the entire parcel for development and close Burke to open a huge land opportunity. 
 

Establish and maintain a pro-growth and a business-friendly culture that will be highly motivated to build.  Seek state and federal assistance wherever possible to build  key access roads  and begin whatever environmental and infrastructural steps are prerequisite- and all the unsexy legal hurdles. 
 

And say what you will about the Haslams - at least they tried to create a new vision for the lakefront - A compelling new “vision” like Bedrock presented for the riverfront might be important to create a sense of the long- term potential and possibilities for a new generation that will live into the late 21st century. 
 

We all love this town - and I think we mostly agree that a thriving waterfront will be the key to Cleveland reemerging as a key Midwest city in decades to come - most of us won’t be here to see that - but we’ll know if the foundation for future prosperity has been created or if it’s still beyond the scope of our childrens’ lives. 

I agree with most of this, and think there's a lot of wisdom in it. There is one area though where I think there's a necessary role for centralized city planning, and that is in determining where NOT to develop. I.e. which areas to retain for public parks.

 

Lakefront development (Burke closure, port relocation, etc) will be Cleveland's last opportunity to create a large, contiguous park near the downtown core. Our own version of Grant park. That opportunity will never reemerge if we let this one pass. Here's hoping city leaders have the foresight to see this opportunity for what it is.

1 hour ago, KJP said:

 

 

I like your list of proposed lakefront improvements @StapHanger. But if you build an intermodal transportation center over the tracks, why not incorporate a green roof onto it, as an extension of the Malls? With that, you get a land bridge.

 

Oh, for sure. If there is reason for there to be a structure over the tracks (and intermodal station is a great one!), I'm all for adapting it to also serve as a pedestrian connection.  I'm just dead set against spending huge money to extend the mall for its own sake. The mall is a dead zone. Spending huge money to extend a dead zone is crazy to me. Would much rather use our limited bullets on pedestrian-scaled connections + useable square feet. Pretty much the oppose of the Haslam plan, which I think is best understood as a vanity parking structure with a few out lots. 

yeah it should be thought of as a grand rail station over the tracks that also happens to serve as a land bridge. importantly for sure, but secondarily.

 

if they just go with building a mall extension land bridge or a land bridge close to the stadium its an insanely foolish blown opportunity.

Moving this Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Renovation discussion here since it is construction related.

 

57 minutes ago, cle_guy90 said:

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2023/03/rock-hall-seeks-early-stage-city-approval-for-100m-expansion-plan-to-enable-groundbreaking-this-year.html
 

I like the new design. Interesting that they changed the colors and that they are no longer connecting to the GLSC. They are geared to break ground late summer or early fall!

 

40 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

It would be nice if they could do something with that ugly backside.  Maybe add some reflective glass panels that light up at night with various colors.  The top floor of the tower is a waste.  Perhaps they can add some windows and convert it to a lounge.  I.M. Pei (aka I M Well Paid) should have tweaked the design a bit when they moved to the harbor.

 

 

10 minutes ago, Ethan said:

It's an improvement over the last design. I wonder if they have given any thought to how this would/could interact with any potential land bridge proposal. There's a lot of potential for synergy between the two ideas, so I hope that is being considered and that backroom talks are taking place.

 

Should this conversation be in the development forum? It's definitely construction related.

 

@KJPI'm looking forward to the NeoTrans article on this, which I'm sure will be superior to Cleveland.com 

 

53 minutes ago, Ethan said:

Moving this Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Renovation discussion here since it is construction related.

 

 

 

 

All previous discussion was in the thread I posted in. Maybe there needs to be a new thread title rock and roll hall of fame expansion?

I didn't see any mention of an indoor physical connection to the Science Center.  Wasn't that part of the last iteration?  I wonder if they scrapped that idea.

I think that wat two iterations ago when they were looking at different pedestrian bridge designs from the malls.

 

that last iteration was similar to this, just uglier

Edited March 16, 20232 yr by Whipjacka

I guess with the expanded footprint toward the west, the indoor space is so much closer to the science center, so the rationale for connecting them became moot.

I pray that this never happens. This design is a complete bastardization of the original building, which is iconic and shouldn’t be touched. This is so terrible. 

 

This architect clearly hated I.M. Pei. It looks like a shard of glass piercing right into the heart of this gem.
 

Throw the whole thing in the trash. 

1 minute ago, marty15 said:

I pray that this never happens. This design is a complete bastardization of the original building, which is iconic and shouldn’t be touched. This is so terrible. 

 

This architect clearly hated I.M. Pei. It looks like a shard of glass piercing right into the heart of this gem.
 

Throw the whole thing in the trash. 

 

Reminds me of a lot of sentiment at the time I.M. Pei unveiled his expansion to the Louvre.