Jump to content

Featured Replies

I’m pretty much with @marty15on this one -we’ve  got a truly iconic building - and now they add this thing? It interrupts the design of the main museum and adds nothing architecturally worthwhile. They said this is for the next 14 million fans?  A little over inflated self analysis. 

This is supposed to be the Rock  N Roll Hall of Fame - do it iconically or don’t bother. Hope the city design committee feels similarly. 

  • Replies 6.8k
  • Views 621.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • BoomerangCleRes
    BoomerangCleRes

    https://www.cleveland.com/news/2024/09/cleveland-metroparks-partners-announce-world-class-community-sailing-center-to-open-in-2026.html?outputType=amp  

  • NorthShore64
    NorthShore64

    For a MUCH more clear version of the plan, here is the recording of the special planning commission meeting from Monday (5-17-21). This wasn't published online / made available until late tonight (~10

  • Amtrak seeks $300m for Great Lakes-area stations By Ken Prendergast / April 26, 2024   Cleveland and other Northern Ohio cities would gain new, larger train stations from a program propose

Posted Images

I think they have enough guitars and articles of clothing in there already.  How much more space do they need? 

 

Edited by LibertyBlvd

55 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

I think they have enough guitars and articles of clothing in there already.  How much more space do they need? 

 

 

What they need to do is focus on programming - for being the Rock Hall, they sure do a poor job of throwing shows.

To those unhappy, how else would one expand this building?  I haven't seen any early design iterations or alternatives and haven't spent much time viewing these new renderings. In my view, this design adds some interesting complexity and bulk to the site. Hey! Rock n Roll is complex too. Maybe not as much whimsy as the original building, but it feels like it isn't in dissonance, perhaps with the unfortunate exception of losing the focal point of entrance. 

Edited by DO_Summers

I really don't like the idea of attaching a new structure to the iconic front of the building. I'd prefer that they just expand it underground. I thought that was the plan when expansion was first being discussed several years ago. 

 

Edited by LibertyBlvd

I had posted this in the Rock and Roll Thread back in February.  Sure seems this image was correct in what refinements were presented to The City. This rendering depicts more of what the expansion will look like

 

"https://www.architectmagazine.com/design/exhibit-columbus-names-the-latest-j-irwin-and-xenia-s-miller-prize-recipients-and-university-design-research-fellows_o

 

 

I was reading this article and an image appeared courtesy of PAU for their design of The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame expansion.   It appears more refined than previously shown.  I am hopeful this is what is planned"

1431396121_rockhallexpansion.jpg.e55a81c50ab2d6d5108828c327c81028.jpg

^ wow that actually looks good.

 

i would rather the rrhof annex downtown vs expand the iconic building though. and as someone mentioned above spend more time on programming, ie., big music events.

 

but i could be wrong as that render looks very thoughtful and tasteful.

On 3/14/2023 at 12:08 PM, 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

 

 

long range you forgot to move the stadium out of there lol —

 

but seriously i really like these ideas as it is very doable and is by far the most impactful and least expensive options — 

 

especially moving the important, but vastly underused port facilities out of the way to burke as afaik the burke land is just infill and not useful for residential or much of anything else.

 

also, by getting rid of burke, hopefully a rail connection to cak becomes a bit more important.

I'm not understanding the complaints on them needing to focus on programming. They are building an indoor performance area with sitting for up to 900. Their current iteration seats 180. I'm sure they wouldn't have such a dramatic increase if they didn't have plans to use it.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

7 minutes ago, MyPhoneDead said:

I'm not understanding the complaints on them needing to focus on programming. They are building an indoor performance area with sitting for up to 900. Their current iteration seats 180. I'm sure they wouldn't have such a dramatic increase if they didn't have plans to use it.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
 

 

basically, us old heads miss the world series of rock experience — and want the rrhof to spearhead a big coachella or sxsw type of music event like that.

1 minute ago, mrnyc said:

 

basically, us old heads miss the world series of rock experience — and want the rrhof to spearhead a big coachella or sxsw type of music event like that.

How about the underused building 2 doors down?

FES?  Also Public Hall.  Both are underused.

 

Edited by LibertyBlvd

3 hours ago, mrnyc said:

 

basically, us old heads miss the world series of rock experience — and want the rrhof to spearhead a big coachella or sxsw type of music event like that.

I always just felt they should have a viable live concert venue as a part of the Hall - seating for 150 was a joke.  The proposed new space for  900 is like a small high school auditorium.  I’d like to see something around 2000-3000 where they could really accommodate larger events - and I’d do it in the circular  style of the old Front Row Theatre -what a great venue that was! 
 

Edited by CleveFan

The image in today's PD shows the addition looking down from above as being green in color. Anyone know if they are planning a real green roof like the garage next door or is it just colored green?

4 hours ago, LibertyBlvd said:

FES?  Also Public Hall.  Both are underused.

 

Both- and Public Hall is a gem. A gem that needs polishing, but a gem nonetheless.

On 3/17/2023 at 12:58 AM, dave2017 said:

I had posted this in the Rock and Roll Thread back in February.  Sure seems this image was correct in what refinements were presented to The City. This rendering depicts more of what the expansion will look like

 

"https://www.architectmagazine.com/design/exhibit-columbus-names-the-latest-j-irwin-and-xenia-s-miller-prize-recipients-and-university-design-research-fellows_o

 

 

I was reading this article and an image appeared courtesy of PAU for their design of The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame expansion.   It appears more refined than previously shown.  I am hopeful this is what is planned"

1431396121_rockhallexpansion.jpg.e55a81c50ab2d6d5108828c327c81028.jpg

 

 

This plan is much better than the "guitar pick" expansion rendering that I last saw in 2020:  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/18/arts/design/rock-and-roll-hall-of-fame-expansion.html

 

 

  • 2 weeks later...

https://pau.studio/what/rock-and-roll-hall-of-fame-and-museum/

 

updated rendering and descriptions   the addition is proposed to be clad in black steel and specular granite, evoking Cleveland’s industrial past, a history “forged in flame.” Color will derive from the glass, evocative of the ephemera of stage lighting. As the visitor passes through to the interior, they will be immersed in the visceral, gritty quality that has always defined spaces for Rock music, from the old Cleveland Arena, to CBGBs, to the neighborhood dive bars that support local bands.

 

 

18102022-PAU-RHF-V2-FINALS-VERSION4-2415x1358.jpg

i like it. keeps the building looking unique and adds some event space to hopefully draw in more tourists/suburbanites more times a year!

9 hours ago, dave2017 said:

https://pau.studio/what/rock-and-roll-hall-of-fame-and-museum/

 

updated rendering and descriptions   the addition is proposed to be clad in black steel and specular granite, evoking Cleveland’s industrial past, a history “forged in flame.” Color will derive from the glass, evocative of the ephemera of stage lighting. As the visitor passes through to the interior, they will be immersed in the visceral, gritty quality that has always defined spaces for Rock music, from the old Cleveland Arena, to CBGBs, to the neighborhood dive bars that support local bands.

 

 

18102022-PAU-RHF-V2-FINALS-VERSION4-2415x1358.jpg

Honestly the dark cladding feels more like Rock to me than the original design.  I kind of like it.  Also, for those who feel like it is ruining the traditional design, isn't that what Rock is all about?  Destroying tradition and being even a little bit offensive?

Dan Cuffaro’s exhibit at the Cleveland Institute of Art and Design has some great drawings of lakefront development ideas that definitely warrant discussion / consideration.

Does anyone know if the proposed Lake Hill neighborhood concept is gaining traction? Or the boulevard? Or houseboat community? There are so many good ideas in here to unpack. 

f5b96e2a733fc3f49337bdc155117427.jpg
15802950e2eb384071f8274af84162c7.jpg
01b6380baa0f298f8a215238f364c4e2.jpg
75caddaf302caa25623cb52f1a8ad31c.jpg
377814db732b9e871efcb6ca94b11985.jpg




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited by ASP1984

The lakefront looks good, although it might look better without the stadium. I don't see the shoreway or rail tracks.  Are they gone?  And apparently the Mather has been relocated.  That's OK with me.  I never really liked it at the harbor - it takes up too much space there.

I would definately settle for low density development versus waiting 15 years for mid and high rises.  And that's in any master planning area.  If the demand warrants high rise development at some point, then the low density can be demolished to make way for it.  Isn't that the way cities developed anyhow?  I feel the same way about the remainder of Scranton Peninsula.  

Agreed.  There are lots of available parcels in the CBD for mid and high rises.

I've always said I'd take a development like The Wharf in D.C for North Coast harbor and a smaller Navy yards on Burke's land.4da7a430e9e4695900cf72b968f42b34.jpg8a70b65481a5abf9f210017f84a71ff2.jpg

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

  • X locked this topic

FirstEnergy Stadium discussion is now in the FirstEnergy Stadium thread.  Please continue discussion of it there.

  • X unlocked this topic
  • 2 weeks later...

Cleveland proposes North Coast Development Authority with power to realize big lakefront dreams

Steven Litt - Apr. 13, 2023 - Cleveland.com

 

QCA6OFRRJZABDGZIKCZBS47N2M.png

 

"On Monday April 24, Mayor Justin Bibb plans to introduce legislation to City Council to create a North Coast Development Authority empowered to raise hundreds of millions of dollars in private capital and government grants to shepherd big, complex projects to fruition across election cycles and administrations. ... The authority would be a new political subdivision with the power to levy and collect taxes within a defined area, including taxes on parking, and retail items, Epstein said. ... The development authority proposed by the city would have a hybrid structure combining a private, nonprofit 501 c(3) development corporation, plus a New Community Authority, an organization enabled under Ohio law to oversee, build, and finance public infrastructure and community facilities."

The above article mentions public meetings some may want to attend.

 

2 minutes ago, Ethan said:

From the recent Cleveland.com Lakefront article.

 

"Residents are invited in May to participate in a new round of public meetings related to both lakefront planning projects. The Community Visioning Workshops are scheduled for:

 

- Saturday, May 6 from 2 to 4 p.m. at Inlet Dance Theatre, the Pivot Center for Art, Dance and Expression, 2937 W. 25th St.

 

- Tuesday, May 9, 5:30-7:30 p.m., at EJ Kovacic Recreation Center, second floor, 6250 St. Clair Ave.

 

- Thursday, May 11, 12-1:30 p.m., on Zoom.

Information and registration for the events are available at clevelandnorthcoast.com or by calling 216-664-2210."

 

4 minutes ago, Ethan said:

The above article mentions public meetings some may want to attend.

 

7 minutes ago, Ethan said:

From the recent Cleveland.com Lakefront article.

 

"Residents are invited in May to participate in a new round of public meetings related to both lakefront planning projects. The Community Visioning Workshops are scheduled for:

 

- Saturday, May 6 from 2 to 4 p.m. at Inlet Dance Theatre, the Pivot Center for Art, Dance and Expression, 2937 W. 25th St.

 

- Tuesday, May 9, 5:30-7:30 p.m., at EJ Kovacic Recreation Center, second floor, 6250 St. Clair Ave.

 

- Thursday, May 11, 12-1:30 p.m., on Zoom.

Information and registration for the events are available at clevelandnorthcoast.com or by calling 216-664-2210."

Expand  

 

 

Register at: https://clevelandnorthcoast.com/get-involved/

image.png.c7a7e2cd3d33f3ab93f3ad2e8e7dcd37.png

 

1 hour ago, Sapper Daddy said:

 

Thanks for this.  If this actually makes it into the state budget I would sure like to learn the backstory and who are the key players influencing this.  In my mind the state of Ohio would not give Cleveland $65,000,000.00 if we said we have the cure for cancer.

8 minutes ago, Htsguy said:

Thanks for this.  If this actually makes it into the state budget I would sure like to learn the backstory and who are the key players influencing this.  In my mind the state of Ohio would not give Cleveland $65,000,000.00 if we said we have the cure for cancer.

 

Same. Or it'll come with strings like not being able to downgrade the shoreway to remove the ramps and flyover. 

7 minutes ago, Mendo said:

 

Same. Or it'll come with strings like not being able to downgrade the shoreway to remove the ramps and flyover. 

 

Probably that, or it was a trade for supporting another project elsewhere.

If Browns Stadium eventually goes away, I wonder if the land bridge and downgrade of the shoreway would still be necessary?  Could they not just re-open the pedestrian walkway which goes under the shoreway to a newly developed lakefront with no stadium?

 

image.png.679e76f6b74c374047d937e6a0929518.png

7 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

If Browns Stadium eventually goes away, I wonder if the land bridge and downgrade of the shoreway would still be necessary?  Could they not just re-open the pedestrian walkway which goes under the shoreway to a newly developed lakefront with no stadium?

 

On the contrary I'd wager most proponents of the walkway and shoreway downgrade actually prefer the stadium go elsewhere. They view the stadium as an impediment rather than a feature. 

14 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

If Browns Stadium eventually goes away, I wonder if the land bridge and downgrade of the shoreway would still be necessary?  Could they not just re-open the pedestrian walkway which goes under the shoreway to a newly developed lakefront with no stadium?

 

image.png.679e76f6b74c374047d937e6a0929518.png

That bridge is in terrible condition, and I believe is considered unsafe. Assuming it was repaired you still have to cross a highway entrance ramp. It would just be adding an additional pedestrian unfriendly way to reach the lakefront. 

 

Better than nothing sure, but not a real substitute for a land bridge. 

In terms of economic impact, getting rid of the Shoreway and flyover for the land bridge is more important than the stadium.

How does the land bridge accommodate the very challenging weather of Northeast Ohio ?  Isn’t it mostly a grassy knoll across the highway and tracks?  Wouldn’t it be 

problematic in snowy and very rainy weather?  

31 minutes ago, CleveFan said:

How does the land bridge accommodate the very challenging weather of Northeast Ohio ?  Isn’t it mostly a grassy knoll across the highway and tracks?  Wouldn’t it be 

problematic in snowy and very rainy weather?  

 

The Green Ribbon Coalition proposed land bridge has an enclosed walkway underneath, and I think the Haslam's did too.

22 hours ago, Ethan said:

That bridge is in terrible condition, and I believe is considered unsafe. Assuming it was repaired you still have to cross a highway entrance ramp. It would just be adding an additional pedestrian unfriendly way to reach the lakefront. 

They would have to repair the existing bridge or else re-build it.  If the stadium goes away, perhaps the roadways and ramps can be relocated or eliminated.  A land bridge and shoreway conversion sounds nice, but that will be a huge expense.  Will it be worth it?  Do we know if folks will start flocking to the lakefront once there is a land bridge? The "if you build it, they will come" theory doesn't always work. It didn't seem to work for the waterfront line.   

 

Edited by LibertyBlvd

I haven't looked lately, but the old pedestrian bridge is supposed to be removed if it hasn't already. I was told demolition crews were being trained on Federal Railroad Administration safety rules to work around and above active railroad lines. That was months ago.

 

By the way, I asked Grace Gallucci of NOACA this morning if the transit center (Amtrak, Greyhound, light-rail station) was to be a part of this land bridge. She said it was part of the funding application request to the state. Whether it is part of the final design that's underway, if not nearly finished, is unknown. City Planning Director Joyce Huang told me this morning that she has "nothing to report at this time" regarding the inclusion of the transit center in the land bridge's final design.

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck

17 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

.  A land bridge and downgrade of the shoreway sounds nice, but that is going to be a huge expense.  And will it really be worth it?  Do we know if folks will be flocking to the lakefront once there is a land bridge?  The waterfront line was a big expense that never really panned out.

 

Questions that  are worth discussing - Other than a certain number of people marching down to a lakefront stadium for an NFL game - - would the land bridge even be used much?   Maybe there’s a study that was done as to it’s l predicted actual  usage ? 
  II have doubts as to how successful it would be particularly in winter months- which realistically is close to half the year. 
 

 What about its sustainability in terms of being a “beautiful” green space that stays beautiful  in the heart of downtown?  
 

Maybe  all these kinds of land bridge viability / reality check questions have been discussed in a public meeting previously - if anyone has a link to a previous article or video, meeting .etc - I’d love to revisit it/them. 

7 minutes ago, CleveFan said:

Maybe  all these kinds of land bridge viability / reality check questions have been discussed in a public meeting previously - if anyone has a link to a previous article or video, meeting .etc - I’d love to revisit it/them. 

 

This is more of a broad look rather than an in depth cost-benefit analysis. But lots of info here:

 

https://www.greenribbonlakefront.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Land-Bridge-Proposal_GRC_2019-07-22_5.5.pdf

26 minutes ago, CleveFan said:

Questions that  are worth discussing - Other than a certain number of people marching down to a lakefront stadium for an NFL game - - would the land bridge even be used much?   Maybe there’s a study that was done as to it’s l predicted actual  usage ? 
  II have doubts as to how successful it would be particularly in winter months- which realistically is close to half the year. 
 

 What about its sustainability in terms of being a “beautiful” green space that stays beautiful  in the heart of downtown?  
 

Maybe  all these kinds of land bridge viability / reality check questions have been discussed in a public meeting previously - if anyone has a link to a previous article or video, meeting .etc - I’d love to revisit it/them. 

Really.  It seems like you are suggesting this is some kind of new idea that just came up this week.  The land bridge has been discussed and studied for years in a variety of forms and proposals.  At one time a particular design was close to being built until it was nixed due to funding issues as costs increased.  The idea of a land bridge is to support all the new development that is proposed for the lakefront so, yeah it should be used by a huge number of people daily, especially those that will be hopefully living near the lakefront in apartments if we ever get off our butts and actually follow through with lakefront development.

Edited by Htsguy

If there's a transit center under the land bridge, it should get a ton of usage, and really improve the image of the city.  If Amtrak service increases (3C+D and/or more frequent interstate routes), the RTA stop on the waterfront line is moved here, and the Greyhound stop is here, there will be thousands of visitors per day getting off under the land bridge.

 

By far the best pedestrian option from there would be taking the land bridge.  You'd be steps from the Rock Hall, Science Center, Browns Stadium, Convention Center, court house, city hall, and a short walk to the rest of downtown.

@Htsguyis right. The landbridge would get enough use if it's complemented with a fully developed lakefront which needs to include condos, apartments, bars, restaurants and green space. 

 

That's a lot of development costing a lot of money. Maybe a saving grace in building an open air stadium is the money saved can go to that development because if a dome costs 2 billion plus where is the additional money coming from for lakefront development? 

 

At any rate addressing the shoreway, building a landbridge, a stadium and lakefront development too will necessitate compiling money from the Haslem's, city, county and state government. A holistic development may be just the ticket to get all parties on board and we finally get what we've been pining about for decades.

Consider that a residential or hotel tower would need anywhere from 100 to 300 parking spaces. An office tower might need 500-1000. IIRC, the number of parking spaces in the land bridge and north of tracks extending over to East 9th would number in the thousands. If it's 3,000 spaces, that offers plenty of daytime parking for an office building the convention center and even more parking available at night for residential buildings. I've cropped the conceptual drawing of the land bridge that was used for the funding application to the state to focus on where much of the high-rise development would likely be...

Lakefront ped connector-CROP.jpg

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck

19 minutes ago, cadmen said:

@Htsguyis right. The landbridge would get enough use if it's complemented with a fully developed lakefront which needs to include condos, apartments, bars, restaurants and green space. 

 

That's a lot of development costing a lot of money.

And then there is Bedrock's plan for the riverfront which is a lot of development costing a lot of money.  Is it realistic to think all this development will come to fruition?

1 hour ago, KJP said:

Consider that a residential or hotel tower would need anywhere from 100 to 300 parking spaces. An office tower might need 500-1000. IIRC, the number of parking spaces in the land bridge and north of tracks extending over to East 9th would number in the thousands. If it's 3,000 spaces, that offers plenty of daytime parking for an office building the convention center and even more parking available at night for residential buildings. I've cropped the conceptual drawing of the land bridge that was used for the funding application to the state to focus on where much of the high-rise development would likely be...

Lakefront ped connector-CROP.jpg

Add in the parking spots from the top floors of the Huntington and Willard Park garage, turning them into green roofs and tying into the land bridge. Not sure why that hasn’t been discussed. The structures are already built. Huntington Park and Willard Park would directly connect to the waterfront and land bridge then. 

Edited by marty15

38 minutes ago, marty15 said:

Add in the parking spots from the top floors of the Huntington and Willard Park garage, turning them into green roofs and tying into the land bridge. Not sure why that hasn’t been discussed. The structures are already built. Huntington Park and Willard Park would directly connect to the waterfront and land bridge then. 

I think we need to take into account that in this day and age you don't need as many spaces for an office tower anymore. 

Create an account or sign in to comment

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.