May 7, 20232 yr I didn't mind the concept of turning the shoreway bridge into a 35 mph boulevard like the rest of the shoreway but dumping the traffic onto West 3rd downtown but ODOT apparently said it would cause traffic jams and nixed it. Tbh I'm not a huge fan of either remaining option but if I had to pick one it would be bucket C which removes and replace the existing Main Avenue bridge ramp with a new one located west of West Third Street and opens up more development land. Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
May 7, 20232 yr Imagine a big city with a traffic jam - wow Same thing I said Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
May 8, 20232 yr Federal Highway Administration Level Of Service (LOS) is one of the most anti-urban policies of the federal government. The basis of LOS is any highway that is jammed with traffic gets a lower LOS rating (D and F) while roads with free-flowing traffic get higher ratings (A and B). Middle of the pack gets a C. So if a highway project doesn't at least maintain LOS or, better yet, improve it, it's not going to get Federal Highway Administration funds. Cities have traffic. Slower car traffic makes transit, biking and walking safer and more attractive. So ultimately projects that improve LOS are more competitive and will win more federal dollars. So the more costly and extravagant highway projects that improve LOS make transit, biking and walking less safe and attractive thus making the city a less pleasant place. People move out of the city, become car dependent, exacerbate urban spawl, and take more and longer drives, thus causing LOS to fall again, necessitating the next short-term "fix". In one of my urban transportation planning text books, this feedback loop was called the "Black Hole Theory" of highway investment. This relates to the Shoreway because traditional federal highway funds could not be used for its downgrading to a boulevard. Instead, there's a new pot of federal highway money to remove highways that divide communities. To secure federal funds, at least 20 percent of project costs have to be funded by non-federal sources. And while most of ODOT's funding is also intended to favor LOS, ODOT can tap one of its accounts for road projects that support economic development. So that can be used for the non-federal share. Despite these funds that support non-LOS-related projects, getting road engineers (at the city, county and ODOT) to accept the notion that their project will worsen traffic is akin to betraying their faith. But their faith has destroyed the quality of life in American cities for 80 years. And it's time to start making cities less friendly to cars and more friendly to people. It cannot be both. It's time to stop bargaining with our car addiction. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
May 8, 20232 yr So I thought for certain this map from my article would lead to lots of speculation and discussion here about the chosen area of jurisdiction for the proposed North Coast Development Corp. (NCDC)... https://neo-trans.blog/2023/05/05/cleveland-has-designs-on-its-waterfronts/ "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
May 8, 20232 yr 5 minutes ago, KJP said: So I thought for certain this map from my article would lead to lots of speculation and discussion here about the chosen area of jurisdiction for the proposed North Coast Development Corp. (NCDC)... https://neo-trans.blog/2023/05/05/cleveland-has-designs-on-its-waterfronts/ Hmmmmm...the shaded area east of Erieview and south of the shoreway?
May 8, 20232 yr Yes "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
May 8, 20232 yr On 5/3/2023 at 11:57 AM, KJP said: Exactly. I've heard from convention center officials that having some natural light coming into those ballroom windows is very important to them. There has actually been some opposition from the convention center folks to the land bridge idea because of the lighting situation. So they'd really like to have some natural light. Could you have steps on one side and a ramp on the other to bring the land bridge itself down to a level just below the convention center windows -- or would that be too low to clear the freight tracks?
May 8, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, bumsquare said: The conspiratorial tone at the beginning is a little off-putting, but it’s hard to argue with his main points. The only reason the land bridge is being considered is because some rich people decided they could make money off of it. Can you imagine the state gifting Cleveland $62 mil for projects that are actually useful? Who locally is really asking for a $200 million land bridge? I don’t think I even understand who is supposed to be walking across the bridge. Would 1,000 extra apartments on the lakefront justify that kind of infrastructure investment? The only thing that makes any sense to me is that the Haslams want it, they want the public to pay for it, and they have the cash to grease the proper wheels. I agree with you about the conspiratorial tone. But in terms of the land bridge I've been wanting one long before the Haslams proposal, because it's a very logical location. The "core-to-shore " mantra makes a lot of sense, even just from a "I want to take a walk" perspective. I've walked to the end of the malls and wished I could continue walking many times. We've effectively segregated not just our lakefront but also several of our best tourist attractions from pedestrians. That's not a recipe for success for any city. We need to focus on linking all of our best assets together, particularly for non-car travel, and several of those assets are on the lake. And it's not like I'm alone, the Green Ribbon coalition has been proposing a variation on this for years. https://www.greenribbonlakefront.org/projects/landbridge/ Even the original Burnham plan looks to suggest a similar idea. Though it looks like more of a train terminal as the connector than a land bridge, but it appears to suggest a small park on the lake, so it's accomplishing the same idea, just in a different way (assuming the terminal would be able to be passed through by pedestrians). This is particularly true if we add Amtrak under the land bridge. (Which we should). On 4/28/2023 at 10:01 AM, GISguy said: More renderings, but here are some (crappy) photos of the Group Plan from 1907 Obviously price is always a consideration, and trade offs are an ever present reality, but I do think a land bridge at this location should be somewhere near the top of Cleveland's new infrastructure priority list. Precisely where is up for debate.
May 8, 20232 yr 2 hours ago, Foraker said: Could you have steps on one side and a ramp on the other to bring the land bridge itself down to a level just below the convention center windows -- or would that be too low to clear the freight tracks? Interesting idea, but the bridge would likely be too low. The windows are floor to ceiling.
May 8, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, bumsquare said: Who locally is really asking for a $200 million land bridge? I don’t think I even understand who is supposed to be walking across the bridge. Would 1,000 extra apartments on the lakefront justify that kind of infrastructure investment? I basically share the same concerns, and I'm glad to see an article covering this from an alternate point of view. Functionally, the land bridge connects one place where no one actually lives (ie. the blocks directly surrounding the mall) to another place where no one actually lives (the lakefront, where people theoretically could live in the future via a very large public subsidy). Further out than that, the W 3rd and W 9th bridges already serve as pedestrian connections between the residential parts of downtown and the RRHOF, stadium, etc. Even a smaller pedestrian bridge like the one that already used to exist could provide the same level of connection, functionally, as the $200 million land bridge project would, and if done well could still offer a visually prominent and pleasurable entrance to the lakefront at a fraction of the cost (look up the Millenium Bridge in Denver). Quote The only reason the land bridge is being considered is because some rich people decided they could make money off of it. Can you imagine the state gifting Cleveland $62 mil for projects that are actually useful? This is the bigger issue in my mind. I was sympathetic to this project at first as a sort of highway removal scheme to increase connectivity, but the Shoreway doesn't really divide any residential neighborhoods downtown. And while I support a rebuilt/calmed Shoreway, the "boulevard" concept could definitely be much more well-executed if done in a more progressive political climate. If the state is worried about reconnecting people, there are, and already have been, many better opportunities for this: the highway-to-boulevard conversion of the western Shoreway could have connected far more places where people already live (and will, upon completion of the Westinghouse project) to an already existing massive park space on the lakefront. Away from the lake, many west side neighborhoods could benefit even more from pedestrian bridges across I-90 and I-71, and probably at a much lower cost too. Unfortunately I think the first sentence in this quote holds true. If the main goal of the land bridge isn't to connect places where people already live to places they want to go, then it's just a massive public infrastructure investment for a neighborhood that doesn't even exist yet. I'm not at all opposed to new development on the lakefront, but why is it necessary to give away such a large subsidy to a single developer just to build a parking garage for future development, especially when that money could be much better spent on an infinite number of more useful things? There's clearly no shortage of developable land in the rest of downtown, and I may be wrong but I don't believe any parking minimums exist for the area within the Innerbelt. As much as I'd love to see the lakefront utilized for development and park space, what's the reason for rushing development of a new neighborhood when most of downtown is essentially uninhabited? New development in the eastern portion of downtown and further down St.Clair, next to an interconnected network of lakefront park space via a closed Burke (hopefully?) and the CHEERS project, would be far preferable IMO than several apartment buildings with easy access to a not-so-well-respected football team.
May 8, 20232 yr Where do want the parking for the stadium to be? Along the waters edge so that the site sits empty the remaining 350+ days per year? Or hidden in a land bridge and associated structures? "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
May 8, 20232 yr If you filter out all the noise (Rich owner of a bad team, no existing neighborhood, altering a highway etc.) and just focus on the primary idea which is seamlessly connecting downtown to the lakefront, l think you come to the core of the debate. Is a landbridge a good idea or not? For me, it's not just a good idea but if we end up with anything close to the present propossl it is potentially transforming. We have a Great Lake. It's cut off from downtown ensuring whatever development that is there is a shadow of what it could be. Landlocked cities would kill for access to that Lake. If we don't do this right and take advantage of a major asset then we are just being foolish and deserve our present second class standing.
May 8, 20232 yr it may be a good idea, but theblandbridge won't be hidden parking. it'll be a six-10 floor parking deck that goes over-top the boulevard/al Lerner way. there will be a lot of bulk
May 8, 20232 yr 57 minutes ago, Whipjacka said: it may be a good idea, but theblandbridge won't be hidden parking. it'll be a six-10 floor parking deck that goes over-top the boulevard/al Lerner way. there will be a lot of bulk Actual design work hasn't been done yet. Only concepts for public input meetings to determine what to do with the Shoreway. some of the concepts have the landbridge continuing at a descending level all the way from the north end of the mall and landing at ground level by the water's edge. But not all do, likely because of the cost. But if does go all the way to the water's edge, I suspect the whole thing will be filled with parking (including to replace or incorporate the Science Center garage). If so, there's ways of making parking garages look like something else from the sides. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
May 9, 20232 yr East of E 9th St., you have the Muny Lot, a big expanse of nothing. Why not develop on it (before messing with Burke)? In the 1970's, when I used to park there, it had cars 2/3 the way to the end. Now, maybe 1 to 2 sections are filled. You can add more garage there and develop the remainder. Also, have parking, as is suggested, under the land bridge. Have pre-game tailgating by the port and/or where the NFL draft was held until that lot is developed.
May 9, 20232 yr 6 hours ago, cadmen said: If you filter out all the noise (Rich owner of a bad team, no existing neighborhood, altering a highway etc.) and just focus on the primary idea which is seamlessly connecting downtown to the lakefront, l think you come to the core of the debate. Is a landbridge a good idea or not? For me, it's not just a good idea but if we end up with anything close to the present propossl it is potentially transforming. We have a Great Lake. It's cut off from downtown ensuring whatever development that is there is a shadow of what it could be. Landlocked cities would kill for access to that Lake. If we don't do this right and take advantage of a major asset then we are just being foolish and deserve our present second class standing. It’s not noise. The bridge needs to be justified for something besides parking. It also seems important that the whole project is being driven by someone who has directed piles of cash to the state GOP (which controls the purse strings) and is a crooked businessman and incompetent team owner. Edited May 9, 20232 yr by bumsquare
May 9, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, bumsquare said: It’s not noise. The bridge needs to be justified for something besides parking. It also seems important that the whole project is being driven by someone who has directed piles of cash to the state GOP (which controls the purse strings) and is a crooked businessman and incompetent team owner. It’s simply not true that the whole project is driven by the Haslams. Connectivity to the lakefront has been discussed as one of Cleveland’s planning weaknesses for decades. There have been several prior proposals for land bridges over the years. The difference now with the Haslams is there is a stakeholder with a financial interest in helping this long-discussed public project finally get built. The stars also align with availability of federal and state funding. If leaders fail to build this connection to the region’s greatest asset, the lake, it would be malpractice.
May 9, 20232 yr 8 hours ago, KJP said: Where do want the parking for the stadium to be? Along the waters edge so that the site sits empty the remaining 350+ days per year? Or hidden in a land bridge and associated structures? Personally I don’t think it’s the best use of lakefront land, but the lot is only a little over a quarter mile across and they have an agreement to uphold. With the Port right next door and unlikely to relocate in the foreseeable future, there’s going to be a decent chunk of underutilized land in that corner anyway—the only real advantage I see to lakefront development existing on the western side of downtown is if it could function as an extension of the Flats, which it couldn’t. I understand the core-to-shore concept and the goal of connecting the lake to the center of downtown, but Public Square is not really that close to the waterfront in the first place and I can’t see most people actually walking or even realizing they’re that close. Here’s what I wish would happen instead, if I could wave a magic wand or whatever: - Leave the Browns stadium and it’s parking as it is for the time being, prefer a renovated stadium with the smallest public commitment possible. I don’t view stadiums for private sports teams as a public good. - Close Burke and replace it with a park, which along with CHEERS and Dike 14 could form the basis of Cleveland’s world-class lakefront - Focus residential/mixed-use development in the eastern portion of downtown and further, across from the future Burke park, with pedestrian bridges as necessary. Chicago and Milwaukee have incredibly accessible and popular green lakefronts with highway/boulevards in front of them and it doesn’t seem to be a problem. - Finally, with new residents, businesses, restaurants and retail in the eastern portion of downtown, I think a downtown loop extension of the WFL could be justified to the public, offering transit connections to the largest part of the lakefront from across the city. Rather than swallowing up demand with development in an area that already has transit. 1 hour ago, bumsquare said: It’s not noise. The bridge needs to be justified for something besides parking. With (actually useful) rapid transit passing in front of the mall, build the parking garage as part of a new transportation center in the spirit of Burnham’s original Group Plan, offering a pedestrian connection to the lakefront sheltered from the elements. If it could serve as a hub for expanded Amtrak service, the now-homeless Greyhound bus, AND light rail that would actually have a reason to run late, then you could not only justify the cost of the garage but also have an excuse to construct a physically massive structure to serve as a monument to public transportation. Rather than a big garage with a green roof. But I can’t wave a magic wand, and I understand many people are tired of waiting decades for anything to happen. Edited May 9, 20232 yr by sonisharri
May 9, 20232 yr 29 minutes ago, sonisharri said: Public Square is not really that close to the waterfront in the first place and I can’t see most people actually walking or even realizing they’re that close I feel like part of this perception is precisely because there isn't a land bridge or other easy pedestrian connection. Right now it takes about 20 minutes to walk from public square to the rock hall, and large sections of that walk are not particularly pedestrian friendly. However, it only takes 8 minutes to walk from public square to the end of mall C, if there was a land bridge it would take a total of 12 minutes to get to the Rock Hall. All of which would be very pedestrian friendly. I don't consider 12 minutes a long walk, but 20 minutes can seem quite long, particularly if the area isn't pedestrian friendly. 37 minutes ago, sonisharri said: Close Burke and replace it with a park, which along with CHEERS and Dike 14 could form the basis of Cleveland’s world-class lakefront I wholly agree on your park proposals, but in my mind that would only increase the need for a land bridge. Having a huge park like that so (relatively) close to downtown (~20 minute walk from PS) and not creating quality bike/pedestrian infrastructure to get there from the downtown core seems silly to me. Sure you could/should have a few pedestrian bridges further East, but there aught to be a quality connection from the downtown core. 1 hour ago, sonisharri said: Chicago and Milwaukee have incredibly accessible and popular green lakefronts with highway/boulevards in front of them and it doesn’t seem to be a problem Sure but Chicago (less sure about Milwaukee) isn't also dealing with a huge elevation change (not to mention multiple railroad tracks). If this was all at the same grade simply converting the shoreway into a boulevard would probably be sufficient for pedestrian access 1 hour ago, sonisharri said: Focus residential/mixed-use development in the eastern portion of downtown and further, across from the future Burke park, with pedestrian bridges as necessary. It's also worth pointing out that as of right now the land bridge is being bundled with the converting the shoreway into a boulevard. One of the explicitly stated benefits of this conversion (see my post about the north coast meeting up thread) is that it allows for the muni lot to become developable. Particularly if Burke becomes a park, these parcels would become very valuable. -- I feel like this conversation has become sidetracked by viewing the land bridge as a parking garage. Even if this structure contains zero parking I think it has the possibility to be transformative in a similar way as the land bridge to gateway arch park in St. Louis (not that we have the smallest National Park at the end of our malls, but the same idea applies). We are strategically capping a highway because easy, safe, enjoyable pedestrian travel is important, particularly when it connects culturally important points. If this structure ends up containing parking that's a bonus, or interesting synergy, I don't think that's the main reason for building it. Other interesting synergies are amtrak and the waterfront line. Potential parking isn't the only side benefit. We've prioritized car transportation for so long we don't seem able to accept that we might make an investment primarily to support pedestrian travel.
May 9, 20232 yr 5 hours ago, Ethan said: I feel like this conversation has become sidetracked by viewing the land bridge as a parking garage. I think our tangent was a little more about handing over a big new parking garage to one specific developer just to enable a development in one specific corner of the lakefront, especially when much of downtown is still empty, and maybe instead finding a way to justify an investment like this as something more than a bridge to a single development project (I agree new parks would justify better connection, but Burke still extends much further to the east). But then again, if a big handout is the only way anything will realistically happen maybe that’s our best bet.
May 9, 20232 yr Put me in the camp of not understanding why the discussion of the land bridge has turned into a debate about a parking garage. As noted by a number of posters, the concept of a land bridge has been put forth for ages due to fact that our connectivity to the lakefront (w 3rd. and E. 9th) is poor for a number or reasons, not the least of which is that it is a horrible (and some could argue even dangerous) pedestrian experience. To those claiming it is a land bridge to nowhere and nobody will use it...well the whole purpose is to foster lakefront development in the North Coast Harbor area. Even I would question the need to spend so much money for the land bridge if it was not part of a larger vision for the lakefront including a substantial residential component. Again this is not something new. However, the Haslams are relatively new to the vision and if their involvement can help, more power to them as the idea has not moved forward for years and years despite the strong need. Also, this whole parking garage discussion seems relatively new, but if it can fit with in the vision and also be done correctly, I don't see the problem.
May 9, 20232 yr 24 minutes ago, Htsguy said: Put me in the camp of not understanding why the discussion of the land bridge has turned into a debate about a parking garage. In reaction to the Crain's article about stadium/lakefront deals posted in the Browns Stadium thread, which to be fair had more to do with the "gift-giving" aspect of the land bridge than the parking aspect. I don't want to derail this discussion too much, though. https://www.crainscleveland.com/opinion/stadium-deals-gift-riches-owners-such-browns-haslams
May 9, 20232 yr 8 hours ago, Ethan said: I feel like part of this perception is precisely because there isn't a land bridge or other easy pedestrian connection. Right now it takes about 20 minutes to walk from public square to the rock hall, and large sections of that walk are not particularly pedestrian friendly. However, it only takes 8 minutes to walk from public square to the end of mall C, if there was a land bridge it would take a total of 12 minutes to get to the Rock Hall. All of which would be very pedestrian friendly. I don't consider 12 minutes a long walk, but 20 minutes can seem quite long, particularly if the area isn't pedestrian friendly. Well, there was a pedestrian connection at one time, but apparently it was deemed unsafe. I doubt very many people are walking from Public Square to the Rock Hall. Most are probably parking at the Science Center garage or one of the parking garages on E 9th. The Waterfront Line would be a good way to get to the Rock Hall from Public Square, if it was running. I know E 9th is not very pedestrian friendly, but there are options available to change that.
May 9, 20232 yr So the argument is made that we should develop easily accessed properties around town before spending on a landbridge. At first glance that might seem reasonable. But let's look at the big picture. You can put a building here, a building there and what do you have? Infill, which is important, but in the grand scheme of things doesn't add a lot of value. Now consider the landbridge. It connects ALL of downtown (not just Public Square) to the waterfront. Which opens up that area to massive development. The landbridge is a catalyzing development. It's an economic multiplier. Why is that? Because people are subconsciously attracted to water views. It's in our DNA. Don't agree? Then why are properties on the water more valuable than properties across the street? They always have been, always will be. We have a waterfront. Not taking advantage of it it just stupid.
May 9, 20232 yr I'm pro-landbridge but from my many bike adventures down to this lot/future development area, the water is pretty stagnant and gross down there - there's very little churn vs the water around Voinovich Park. The Mather/port/and many other factors keep the water pretty still down here. I know it's something that can probably be fixed and it shouldn't be the reason to hold up the project but something to think about. I'm sure the same could've been said for the Cuyahoga (even today) so please, feel free to ignore this hah.
May 9, 20232 yr Give me a piece of infrastructure which would give greater incentive to build on the city's lakefront any day of the week. I don't see how this would be an issue- at all.
May 9, 20232 yr 4 minutes ago, GISguy said: I'm pro-landbridge but from my many bike adventures down to this lot/future development area, the water is pretty stagnant and gross down there - there's very little churn vs the water around Voinovich Park. The Mather/port/and many other factors keep the water pretty still down here. I know it's something that can probably be fixed and it shouldn't be the reason to hold up the project but something to think about. These are good points. Water quality would be vastly improved by re-naturalizing the shoreline. I think we'll get there someday, but we are just way behind Toronto, Chicago, San Diego, etc. Unfortunately in Ohio we are just in nascent stages of fixing things along Lake Erie.
May 9, 20232 yr 6 minutes ago, Oldmanladyluck said: Give me a piece of infrastructure which would give greater incentive to build on the city's lakefront any day of the week. I don't see how this would be an issue- at all. The "build it and they will come" philosophy. Wasn't the waterfront line supposed to do that?
May 9, 20232 yr 4 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said: The "build it and they will come" philosophy. Wasn't the waterfront line supposed to do that? Are you arguing against lakefront development?
May 9, 20232 yr ^ You need a little more than a train ride to ride a train. The waterfront line was successful when there was a reason to ride it. Like Browns game days. Give people a reason to go somewhere and they usually show up. Fully developing the waterfront gives them more reasons to show up.
May 9, 20232 yr 47 minutes ago, cadmen said: So the argument is made that we should develop easily accessed properties around town before spending on a landbridge. At first glance that might seem reasonable. But let's look at the big picture. You can put a building here, a building there and what do you have? Infill, which is important, but in the grand scheme of things doesn't add a lot of value. Now consider the landbridge. It connects ALL of downtown (not just Public Square) to the waterfront. Which opens up that area to massive development. The landbridge is a catalyzing development. It's an economic multiplier. Why is that? Because people are subconsciously attracted to water views. It's in our DNA. Don't agree? Then why are properties on the water more valuable than properties across the street? They always have been, always will be. We have a waterfront. Not taking advantage of it it just stupid. That’s why a house in Collinwood costs $5 million and you can get a house in Brecksville for $30k. You’re making a lot of assumptions but unfortunately being “subconsciously attracted to water views” isn’t a substitute for actual market analysis. I doubt anybody is against lakefront development. But why here and why with a $200 million dollar land bridge? If the drive for developing the lakefront is so overwhelming and obvious why hasn’t anybody built anything there yet? A bridge is going to be the thing that suddenly turns all the switches on?
May 9, 20232 yr 3 hours ago, surfohio said: Are you arguing against lakefront development? No, not at all. The post I was responding to seemed to indicate that if a land bridge is built, it will provide incentive to develop the lakefront. Maybe it will, but there is no guarantee, especially if it is competing with Bedrock's development plan at Tower City and also if the stadium is going to remain there. I've been around a long time and I have seen a lot of development plans that never happened. Edited May 9, 20232 yr by LibertyBlvd
May 9, 20232 yr 24 minutes ago, surfohio said: Are you arguing against lakefront development? I do think there's a difference between being opposed to lakefront development on its own and being skeptical of using public money to try to encourage development. At the very least, I think discussion and public input is a positive and important thing for these types of joint projects.
May 9, 20232 yr Here's to more magic wands for everyone! I don't agree with all of your proposals, but I think there is a lot we could agree on. 11 hours ago, sonisharri said: With the Port right next door and unlikely to relocate in the foreseeable future, there’s going to be a decent chunk of underutilized land in that corner anyway—the only real advantage I see to lakefront development existing on the western side of downtown is if it could function as an extension of the Flats, which it couldn’t. I hope that this is part of the long-term plan (next century, maybe not in my lifetime) -- moving the port to allow development to turn the corner and run from the Flats to the Rock Hall. (And from the Flats behind Tower City!) There has been some discussion of developing a container port near E55, but it may be difficult to completely move the bulk materials port from adjacent the mouth of the Cuyahoga. And we may want to maintain a passenger port near downtown. Times will surely change, so who knows. 11 hours ago, sonisharri said: - Close Burke and replace it with a park, which along with CHEERS and Dike 14 could form the basis of Cleveland’s world-class lakefront I still haven't been sold on closing Burke and making it a giant park. Just making Burke a park does not give Cleveland a world-class lakefront -- this will require a huge investment and I don't think it would be a catalyst to further investment. At the end of the day, I think we have a lot of higher priorities for our tax dollars. 11 hours ago, sonisharri said: - Leave the Browns stadium and it’s parking as it is for the time being, prefer a renovated stadium with the smallest public commitment possible. I don’t view stadiums for private sports teams as a public good. - Focus residential/mixed-use development in the eastern portion of downtown and further, across from the future Burke park, with pedestrian bridges as necessary. - Finally, with new residents, businesses, restaurants and retail in the eastern portion of downtown, I think a downtown loop extension of the WFL could be justified to the public, offering transit connections to the largest part of the lakefront from across the city. Rather than swallowing up demand with development in an area that already has transit. With (actually useful) rapid transit passing in front of the mall, build the parking garage as part of a new transportation center in the spirit of Burnham’s original Group Plan, offering a pedestrian connection to the lakefront sheltered from the elements. If it could serve as a hub for expanded Amtrak service, the now-homeless Greyhound bus, AND light rail that would actually have a reason to run late, then you could not only justify the cost of the garage but also have an excuse to construct a physically massive structure to serve as a monument to public transportation. Rather than a big garage with a green roof. Yes, yes, and yes. Count me in.
May 9, 20232 yr I posted in the Browns thread on this topic. I personally don’t view this as some corrupt scheme and I see the reasons for support. No one is asking me, but I am not adamantly opposed or anything. But I still have the concern about the idea of walking across the land bridge from downtown. It just seems like a big hike, especially when you’re walking through large open spaces, which in my experience feel longer than they actually are and aren’t super inviting. There isn’t really anything to do around the Mall and is that really expected to change? It’s not like the land bridge would be something you’d pass through during a normal day unless you intentionally made a point of going there like the National Mall in DC. Which is an amazing amenity but not really a transportation solution. Maybe a way to address my concern is with a circulator bus that travels across the land bridge to the waterfront? I note all the comments in the thread that this idea is longstanding. I am not from here so I plead ignorance on past debate of this over the years!
May 9, 20232 yr 18 minutes ago, bumsquare said: You’re making a lot of assumptions but unfortunately being “subconsciously attracted to water views” isn’t a substitute for actual market analysis. There is absolutely market analysis for water views, at least from a residential standpoint.
May 9, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, LibertyBlvd said: I doubt very many people are walking from Public Square to the Rock Hall. Most are probably parking at the Science Center garage or one of the parking garages on E 9th. Unfortunately I agree with you, but you're just making my point for me. I doubt many people (myself excluded of course) are currently choosing to walk from Public Square to the Rock Hall. Why would they? It's an awful walk, with large sections that are unenjoyable and potentially unsafe for pedestrians. As you point out, people are reacting rationally to the built environment and choosing to drive to the Rock Hall and anywhere else in the North Coast. That's what I'd like to see changed. I'm confident many people will choose to make that walk if there was a direct, safe, and enjoyable walk there. After all, 12 minutes is not that long, and if they come in on a train and have to transfer that's probably close to the average time to destination they could expect even if/when the waterfront line is reopened. The more we can connect the hot areas of Cleveland together the more the gaps between these areas will start to shrink. The North Coast currently has several of downtown Cleveland's biggest tourist/entertainment draws. It needs to be well connected to the downtown core. (And the flats, and playhouse square, etc). I'd love for people visiting Cleveland (either from the suburbs or farther away) to feel like they can park their car once and not need to move it. Beyond that, I hope they enjoy walking through the city (ditto for Cleveland residents), one of the biggest things that distringuishes great cities from mediocre ones is how enjoyable they are to walk.
May 9, 20232 yr 6 minutes ago, surfohio said: There is absolutely market analysis for water views, at least from a residential standpoint. Yes of course, but you removed everything else I said. It’s part of the value, but not such an all-encompassing force that the market is self-evident.
May 9, 20232 yr 12 minutes ago, sonisharri said: I do think there's a difference between being opposed to lakefront development on its own and being skeptical of using public money to try to encourage development. At the very least, I think discussion and public input is a positive and important thing for these types of joint projects. Public money is necessary to undo the damage from a century of bad planning. There's just no way around that as it's an issue of infrastructure. * agree public input is important and we have 30+ years of it, notably from the 1990's plan.
May 9, 20232 yr 7 minutes ago, coneflower said: I personally don’t view this as some corrupt scheme and I see the reasons for support. I agree that the "corrupt scheme" framing from the Crain's article is a bit of a stretch and sounds a little conspiratorial. However I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that offering benefits to large developers while many existing communities could stand to use the money better is a bit regressive in nature. Though I realize the state may not give any money otherwise. 10 minutes ago, coneflower said: But I still have the concern about the idea of walking across the land bridge from downtown. It just seems like a big hike, especially when you’re walking through large open spaces, which in my experience feel longer than they actually are and aren’t super inviting. This is why I'm a fan of a frequent transit connection from across downtown, one way or another.
May 9, 20232 yr 12 minutes ago, coneflower said: But I still have the concern about the idea of walking across the land bridge from downtown. It just seems like a big hike, especially when you’re walking through large open spaces, which in my experience feel longer than they actually are and aren’t super inviting. There isn’t really anything to do around the Mall and is that really expected to change? It’s not like the land bridge would be something you’d pass through during a normal day unless you intentionally made a point of going there like the National Mall in DC. Which is an amazing amenity but not really a transportation solution. Maybe a way to address my concern is with a circulator bus that travels across the land bridge to the waterfront? I think this gets to the heart of it for me. Who is using the bridge? Where are they coming from and where are they going?
May 9, 20232 yr 2 minutes ago, bumsquare said: Yes of course, but you removed everything else I said. It’s part of the value, but not such an all-encompassing force that the market is self-evident. I would argue it is self-evident haha. No disrespect at all - I appreciate yours and others views, but everywhere i've ever lived it's more expensive, even drastically so, to live closer to the water.
May 9, 20232 yr 3 minutes ago, surfohio said: I would argue it is self-evident haha. No disrespect at all - I appreciate yours and others views, but everywhere i've ever lived it's more expensive, even drastically so, to live closer to the water. Water is absolutely a valued amenity. But recognizing that isn’t the same as justifying an enormous public subsidy for theoretical apartments and it isn’t a substitute for knowing if those apartments will actually get filled.
May 9, 20232 yr 9 minutes ago, surfohio said: Public money is necessary to undo the damage from a century of bad planning. There's just no way around that as it's an issue of infrastructure. * agree public input is important and we have 30+ years of it, notably from the 1990's plan. I agree, but the nature of how that money is used and who it benefits is another matter. More than half of the city's population wasn't alive less than 40 years ago and many of us have relocated from other places; this project will serve a vastly different population with different ideas that I don't think should be discounted.
May 9, 20232 yr 17 minutes ago, bumsquare said: I think this gets to the heart of it for me. Who is using the bridge? Where are they coming from and where are they going? I see two groups of people using this bridge. Downtown residents - I have a friend who lives in the West Bank of the flats. He walks down to Wendy Park (and generally out to the old coast guard station) almost every night. It's fairly obvious that he wasn't doing this before the Metroparks opened their new bridge. This is actually a great comparison. People will walk to water if it has nice amenities (parks, restaurants, etc) for literally no reason as long as there is an enjoyable route to get there. People visiting downtown for leisure - these could be tourists, or just locals who don't live downtown, they will want to visit the various amenities and attractions in and around North Coast Harbor (Rock Hall, Science Center, Mather, Cod, etc), they may also want to check things out downtown and would like an easy, pleasant connection. Also, if they don't live near water, they may just want to see the lake. That may sound like not a lot of people when I put it like that, but it's basically everyone except people in town for business.
May 9, 20232 yr I also can’t shake the feeling that the state being willing to send $60 million to Cleveland for a project that isn’t Bible study, a voter suppression task force, or a book burning is a huge red flag.
May 9, 20232 yr 11 minutes ago, sonisharri said: I agree, but the nature of how that money is used and who it benefits is another matter. More than half of the city's population wasn't alive less than 40 years ago and many of us have relocated from other places; this project will serve a vastly different population with different ideas that I don't think should be discounted. I'm not from Ohio. I am however from places that put a lot of investment in their coastline. I don't expect people from landlocked areas to completely understand just how profoundly lacking the Cleveland lakefront is, nor how profoundly valuable proximity to Lake Erie is as an asset.
May 9, 20232 yr 16 minutes ago, bumsquare said: Water is absolutely a valued amenity. But recognizing that isn’t the same as justifying an enormous public subsidy for theoretical apartments and it isn’t a substitute for knowing if those apartments will actually get filled. Valid concerns absolutely. But from what we've seen for downtown residency numbers and a somewhat near universal desire to be close to the water makes the infrastructural investment a good one.
Create an account or sign in to comment