The public expenditure isn't just for one land use. It's to make accessible by a variety of modes of transportation (walking, biking, transit, car, train, bus) an otherwise harsh and largely unwalkable landscape and to promote economic development. That's the purpose and need as stated in this federally compliant project development process. 

 

You all really need to go to these public involvement meetings. The next one is this afternoon: https://clevelandnorthcoast.com/get-involved/

 

The planners involved noted that we used to have a nice lakefront in the 1800s and even into the early 1900s. We went from this....

 

 

 

 

To this .... the Great Wall of Cleveland!

 

 

 

Wow.  Macroeconomic factors we're all aware of contributed greatly to the decline of the city, but there's no doubt in my mind that consistently discounting the livability and attractiveness of Cleveland exacerbated the fall.  

Thanks for those postcards pics. I've never seen anything like that before. I had no idea there were some walking paths north of city hall.

13 minutes ago, KJP said:

The public expenditure isn't just for one land use. It's to make accessible by a variety of modes of transportation (walking, biking, transit, car, train, bus) an otherwise harsh and largely unwalkable landscape and to promote economic development. That's the purpose and need as stated in this federally compliant project development process. 

 

You all really need to go to these public involvement meetings. The next one is this afternoon: https://clevelandnorthcoast.com/get-involved/

 

The planners involved noted that we used to have a nice lakefront in the 1800s and even into the early 1900s. We went from this....

 

 

 

 

To this .... the Great Wall of Cleveland!

 

 

 

Gee, why would anyone want to cover that up and be able to traverse it? Must be a conspiracy.

15 minutes ago, surfohio said:

 

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. 

 

I grew up on an island on the East Coast, and I'm very familiar with a number of waterfront cities, but there are many approaches to waterfront access. Boston's developed waterfront and Chicago's huge parks and beaches are very different but each have their own benefits. I doubt you'll find many people swimming around Boston Harbor, though.

8 minutes ago, sonisharri said:

 

I grew up on an island on the East Coast, and I'm very familiar with a number of waterfront cities, but there are many approaches to waterfront access. Boston's developed waterfront and Chicago's huge parks and beaches are very different but each have their own benefits. I doubt you'll find many people swimming around Boston Harbor, though.

 

Great points. The number of possible approaches vs. realistic approaches in our case is key however. Realistic proposals in recent memory are comparable: there was a pedestrian bridge from 5-6 years ago vs. the suddenly controversial land bridge + Shoreway boulevard concept. Given the two I think you can see the latter is vastly superior for practicality and for spurring more investment. 

1 hour 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. 

 

There are high rise towers by me on the Lake (I live 500 feet away as per Google Maps across a park) and they are low income/public housing.    The towers in Euclid aren't high end either.  

 

Once you get east of Edgewater and especially east of downtown, the shore curves north and the wind comes straight off the lake.   The nice weather is very seasonal.

22 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?

 

This is the saddest state of lakefront planning I can ever think of. Somehow we were able to make our lakefront worse over the last 50 years than better. Atleast there was some activity when the warehouses were there with jobs. Now we just have literal parking spaces that sit empty 95% of the year so suburbanites aren't inconvenienced when going to Browns games. 

 

People need to stop it with the Burke BS. The biggest hindrance of utilizing our Lakefront is the shoreway and this embarrassment called an NFL stadium.  

Lakefront 1936

Lakefront 1970

Lakefront circa 1950's or 1960's

3 hours ago, bumsquare said:

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? 

Um Hate to break it to you, but the houses in Collinwood, that are actually ON the waterfront are not some 30k dollar shack by E140 south of Lakeshore. The premise is true, that's why Edgewater literally has million dollar homes that are sitting on the lakefront edge. 

Lakefront 1877.  You can see the walking paths, lagoon, and arched bridge from the postcards KJP posted.  Also interesting to see the train tracks were there as early as 1877.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the details of the land bridge are “murky” to many  people (well, at least to me). 

I’ve seen the proposed renderings associated with the Haslams with the stadium still on the lakefront - but frankly, that land bridge just looks like a big lawn/mall extending down towards the lake with pretty landscaping (and the new modern buildings)  I guess there’s sidewalks - but Who would be  walking on a grassy mall during 6 months (probably more) of problematic weather per year?  
 

If the main idea is to provide a pedestrian path that extends from public square directly to Lake Erie - Maybe if there was also a “NY high-line”-type of structure  built to focus pedestrian traffic - it might become an attraction in itself as well as providing a more weather proof means. 
 

Obviously  this is an infrastructure project to connect downtown to the lakefront but I think the average Joe might not be up on the details yet.  
 

is there a definitive video presentation of the current leading proposal that gets into real detail? 
 

 

https://www.loc.gov/resource/g4084c.pm006872/?r=0.447,0.173,0.501,0.248,0

 

Here's the website from the 1877 view.  You're going to want to go to the website and zoom in.  The lakefront back then reminds me of the vision for Irishtown Bend, although it seems access to the water never really existed.

1 hour ago, CleveFan said:

is there a definitive video presentation of the current leading proposal that gets into real detail? 

 

 

 

No, because the city hasn't selected a basic design concept (depending on if the Shoreway stays as a highway or turned into a boulevard and if so, where would the boulevard be aligned). Once the locally preferred alternative is selected following the ongoing public input sessions, ONLY THEN will detailed design be undertaken. 

 

That's why it's so important to see the presentation being given at these public sessions (like the one this afternoon) and give your input there.

 

I have a copy of the presentation. I will post a link to it here.

 

Here's one:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fhkzjmt15bazpcn/23_0504_Comm Eng Mtg 1_draft.pdf?dl=0

 

But I think this one really shows the range of potential design alternatives:

https://neo-trans.blog/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/North-Coast-Connector-presentation_Comm-Eng-Mtg-2-options.pdf

^ The last one was interesting and worthwhile. So much so that I plan on going again today. I'd certainly recommend going if you can, they seem to be genuinely interested in the feedback. 

LIVE

Reminder of how useless and inefficient the shoreway is even for the one form of transportation it was built for

Great, well-argued points and lots of helpful resources here. Thank you!

 

 

5 hours ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

LIVE

Reminder of how useless and inefficient the shoreway is even for the one form of transportation it was built for

 

I suspect most of that traffic is originating from downtown and would be unaffected if you ripped up the Shoreway between 3rd and 9th.

I often take the Shoreway at rush hour. It is seldom like that except when there's a crash.

14 hours ago, bumsquare said:

A bridge is going to be the thing that suddenly turns all the switches on? 

Yes. 

I often take the Shoreway at rush hour. It is seldom like that except when there's a crash.

Correct, except this happens frequently at the W28th exit because it takes drivers down to a 3 way stop sign and causes a back up not to mention a back up in the left lane generally used for faster traffic

Also yes crashes happen far to frequently on the bridge 7x out of 10 because of the entrance off of W28th is blind left lane merge

Correct, except this happens frequently at the W28th exit because it takes drivers down to a 3 way stop sign and causes a back up not to mention a back up in the left lane generally used for faster traffic

Also yes crashes happen far to frequently on the bridge 7/10 because of the entrance of on W28th is blind left lane merge

Yeah that short merge is insane.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

20 hours ago, CleveFan said:

I wouldn’t be surprised if the details of the land bridge are “murky” to many  people (well, at least to me). 

I’ve seen the proposed renderings associated with the Haslams with the stadium still on the lakefront - but frankly, that land bridge just looks like a big lawn/mall extending down towards the lake with pretty landscaping (and the new modern buildings)  I guess there’s sidewalks - but Who would be  walking on a grassy mall during 6 months (probably more) of problematic weather per year?  
 

If the main idea is to provide a pedestrian path that extends from public square directly to Lake Erie - Maybe if there was also a “NY high-line”-type of structure  built to focus pedestrian traffic - it might become an attraction in itself as well as providing a more weather proof means. 
 

Obviously  this is an infrastructure project to connect downtown to the lakefront but I think the average Joe might not be up on the details yet.  
 

is there a definitive video presentation of the current leading proposal that gets into real detail? 
 

 

 

"frankly, that land bridge just looks like a big lawn/mall extending down towards the lake with pretty landscaping (and the new modern buildings)".  Yes.  Good.  These are all good things.  We should have them in Cleveland.  More urban greenspace is good.  More pedestrian connectivity to the lakefront is good.  More buildings with active uses on the Mall are good.  Replacing surface parking lots with parking covered by usable greenspace is good.  Great cities have great public spaces and we should build more of them in Cleveland.

 

On the point of winter weather, other people have also raised this issue.  It's a common argument that has existed in the background of development decisions in Cleveland for years.  Its at least part of the reason why there are few high rise balconies and outdoor restaurant seating options in the city.  These are decisions that cut against the vibrancy of an urban environment.  Plenty of cities (Chicago, Toronto, Boston) also experience winter, yet they do not take such self-defeating decisions to avoid using outdoor space. 

 

By limiting our built environment to shielding from the worst conditions, we foreclose ourselves from enjoying the best.  Walking down to the waterfront on a spring or summer day would be a joyous experience.  You could even use the space in winter - it would be a great place for sledding or snowball fights.  Winter occurs in Cleveland, there's no way around that fact, but we shouldn't use that as an excuse to avoid making the city better.

 

Edited May 10, 20232 yr by ryanfrazier

33 minutes ago, ryanfrazier said:

 

"frankly, that land bridge just looks like a big lawn/mall extending down towards the lake with pretty landscaping (and the new modern buildings)".  Yes.  Good.  These are all good things.  We should have them in Cleveland.  More urban greenspace is good.  More pedestrian connectivity to the lakefront is good.  More buildings with active uses on the Mall are good.  Replacing surface parking lots with parking covered by usable greenspace is good.  Great cities have great public spaces and we should build more of them in Cleveland.

 

On the point of winter weather, other people have also raised this issue.  It's a common argument that has existed in the background of development decisions in Cleveland for years.  Its at least part of the reason why there are few high rise balconies and outdoor restaurant seating options in the city.  These are decisions that cut against the vibrancy of an urban environment.  Plenty of cities (Chicago, Toronto, Boston) also experience winter, yet they do not take such self-defeating decisions to avoid using outdoor space. 

 

By limiting our built environment to shielding from the worst conditions, we foreclose ourselves from enjoying the best.  Walking down to the waterfront on a spring or summer day would be a joyous experience.  You could even use the space in winter - it would be a great place for sledding or snowball fights.  Winter occurs in Cleveland, there's no way around that fact, but we shouldn't use that as an excuse to avoid making the city better.

 

 

Yes! It always amazes me how Chicago architecturally speaking embraces (or gives a big middle finger to) the hellish winter conditions they have and cities like Cleveland have defeatist attitudes instead. The amount of balconies and outdoor pools that Chicago buildings have is incredible.

 

I’m glad to see that recent construction in Cleveland has embraced balconies.

 

Two notes:

1. People in Cleveland have been more and more embracing our winters. For example, as long as it is sunny, I’ve seen people paddle boarding and rowing on the river even in temps as low as 37 degrees (see attached photo I took on February 18th as one of many examples). Not to mention the amount of walkers and joggers that you see on almost any winter day in/around Settler’s Landing.

 

2. Cleveland punches way above its weight when it comes to outdoor restaurant seating and outdoor venues (examples: Mulberry’s and Nuevo Moderno). I’ve always loved this about Cleveland. Almost every restaurant in Downtown has some sort of outdoor seating (even the Taco Bell) and as soon as it consistently turns into high 40s and sunny, people will use them.

Edited May 10, 20232 yr by ragarcia

45 minutes ago, ryanfrazier said:

 

"frankly, that land bridge just looks like a big lawn/mall extending down towards the lake with pretty landscaping (and the new modern buildings)".  Yes.  Good.  These are all good things.  We should have them in Cleveland.  More urban greenspace is good.  More pedestrian connectivity to the lakefront is good.  More buildings with active uses on the Mall are good.  Replacing surface parking lots with parking covered by usable greenspace is good.  Great cities have great public spaces and we should build more of them in Cleveland.

 

I think most of us agree that good things are good. The question is whether this is the right basket in which to place the proverbial civic eggs. I would also argue there is plenty of public green space in downtown in particular. And more green space in and of itself isn’t good. It needs to be contextualized in a way that will maximize use. 

15 minutes ago, bumsquare said:

I would also argue there is plenty of public green space in downtown in particular. And more green space in and of itself isn’t good. It needs to be contextualized in a way that will maximize use. 

Rather than responding I'm linking to a previous post below. 

 

On 7/10/2022 at 9:56 PM, Ethan said:

Responding here as it is the more appropriate thread to do so. Agreeing to disagree is fine, I'm replying to you so as to not have to reiterate the prior conversation. Don't feel any pressure to reply.

 

The reason I cite total acreage instead of TPL's computed ranking is both because it is more objective, and more relevant to the discussion. Whether or not Cleveland needs more park space has nothing to do with investment or park equity, those are important concerns, just different concerns.

 

The above screenshot is illustrative of my point, only 6% of Cleveland's land is used for parks, as opposed to 19%(!) for the median city in the 100 largest metro areas.

 

Now, to your specific point about downtown, I disagree with you radically here. To move out of the realm of the subjective I did a quick measurement of the land area devoted to parks in downtown. I found it to be less than 3%, less than the citywide average, which is already far below the median for the largest metro areas. Even if I missed something or made a few mistakes, I don't see Downtown as saturated with parks. 

 

More subjectively, downtown has few parks worth walking to. The malls are nothing special, and thanks to the convention center, no longer performs one of the main functions of malls, which is to preserve sight lines. Public Square is great (poor maintenance aside, two more dead trees cut btw) but it is still bisected by a street, and it's really it's own thing more so than a park. Voinovich park is perhaps an exception (for the views alone!), and it certainly would be if you didn't have to cross a highway and railroad tracks to to get there (cough, land bridge). A fully realized Canal Basin Park would probably also qualify, but does not currently exist. Rivergate is technically downtown, but is pretty far from the downtown core, and more effectively serves the near west side. That said, Rivergate is still full of surface parking, and currently has fences where a riverfront trail should be. 

 

What I've been saying on this forum since I started posting is that Cleveland needs a destination park. Something like Chicago's Grant Park. A place worth walking to. A bit of nature accessible from downtown. The only real candidate for this is in Burke's footprint, but ignoring that, we certainly need more parks. As a downtown resident I feel this need almost daily. 

 

As far as Cleveland's overall ranking from the TPL, it's worth digging into a bit farther. A decent number of people in Cleveland are considered within a ten minute walk from a park; however, a quick look at their map shows that being within a ten minute walk of any point on the Towpath, or indeed any other trail qualifies as being within ten minutes of a park. I love trails and I love the towpath, but considering every point on the towpath a park isn't reasonable.

 

Cleveland also gets a pretty good score on investment. I'm not sure if this includes the Metroparks, I assume it does. Either way, there are clearly two tiers of parks in Cleveland, and it shows.

 

Sorry for the long post. I feel very strongly that Cleveland needs more parks, and in its downtown in particular! 

 

29 minutes ago, bumsquare said:

I think most of us agree that good things are good. The question is whether this is the right basket in which to place the proverbial civic eggs. I would also argue there is plenty of public green space in downtown in particular. And more green space in and of itself isn’t good. It needs to be contextualized in a way that will maximize use. 

 

Your point about maximizing use is a very good one, but there's no reason to believe the mall space won't be improved to do just that. There's a myriad of ways and endless potential here. 

 

Now today the planets are somehow in alignment for this thing to actually happen. I'm honestly amazed to say that. Finally realistic momentum. The alternative means waiting longer for something better to happen. Good luck with that. 

Dropped in on the north coast connector meeting, some of my take aways:

They’re still looking at I-90 and that will dictate what they do with the boulevard # of lanes, intersections, crosswalks.

“The County is designing a multi-use path along North Marginal from East
9th to East 55th. The Connector project would keep that path and add more paths where possible, including along the boulevard.”

“A portion of North Marginal would remain and a portion would be absorbed into the boulevard”
- Vickie Wildeman | Osborn Engineering

ODOT wants to improve deadman’s curve but lack funding

General consensus:
• people generally didn’t want any version of Shoreway
• want a combined transit center
• concerns the boulevard idea even with crosswalks and traffic lights would turn into Clifton in Lakewood /the Shoreway west boulevard
• people want the land bridge

Dropped in on the north coast connector meeting, some of my take aways:

They’re still looking at I-90 and that will dictate what they do with the boulevard # of lanes, intersections, crosswalks.

“The County is designing a multi-use path along North Marginal from East
9th to East 55th. The Connector project would keep that path and add more paths where possible, including along the boulevard.”

“A portion of North Marginal would remain and a portion would be absorbed into the boulevard”
- Vickie Wildeman | Osborn Engineering

ODOT wants to improve deadman’s curve but lack funding

General consensus:
• people generally didn’t want any version of Shoreway
• want a combined transit center
• concerns the boulevard idea even with crosswalks and traffic lights would turn into Clifton in Lakewood /the Shoreway west boulevard
• people want the land bridge

Funny you mention the West Shoreway. On my drive along the shoreway I sat and thought, “if they are going to make this a boulevard they need to make it pedestrian friendly.”

The west shoreway is literally a highway with boulevard speeds. No bike lanes, no sidewalks, just made strictly to push traffic through.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Funny you mention the West Shoreway. On my drive along the shoreway I sat and thought, “if they are going to make this a boulevard they need to make it pedestrian friendly.”

The west shoreway is literally a highway with boulevard speeds. No bike lanes, no sidewalks, just made strictly to push traffic through.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is the lake front path but yes agreed it itself is not friendly to any form of transportation. They addressed the fact that the west Shoreway doesn’t have any of that, they said it did have crosswalks intersections etc planned but fell through because of the people that lived near by or something didn’t want it I forget the exact details wish I still had access to the chat log

Euclid Beach Trail Connector, an 'Edgewater-like park,' one step closer to becoming reality

 

Quote

On Monday night, Cleveland City Council approved spending $3 million in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds for the Euclid Beach Trail Connector, which would expand public lakefront access from the Metroparks Euclid Creek Reservation west along Beulah Park, Villa Beach and some of Shore Acres. It will also include an approximately 0.44 mile bike/pedestrian trail. 

 

...

 

The Euclid Beach Trail Connector is just one of Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb's nine "Waterfront Activation Fund" projects to be used with approximately $21 million in ARPA funds. Other allocations in the fund will go towards the North Coast Connector land bridge and Irishtown Bend Park. 

 

 

https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/local/cleveland/euclid-beach-trail-connector-becoming-reality/95-d1ff5d52-854a-4960-ae88-50c9b17332be

According to Jeff Epstein the plan is to have the North Coast Connector and the Lakefront Master Plans completed and handed over to the development Corp by year-end so they can begin their work. 

 

Officials look to create North Coast Development Corp. to direct city's lakefront plan

Kim Palmer | May 19th 2023

 

"Cleveland City Council on Tuesday, May 16, heard the proposal that would commit an initial $3 million in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding over three years to the new waterfront development authority. The NCDC would be responsible for the planning, implementation and management of Cleveland’s large-scale lakefront projects.

 

...

 

The Bibb administration is looking to create a nonprofit authority board of trustees to set up the NCDC, which would be able to raise revenue similar to a special investment district. It also could levy bonds like a port authority, and it could obtain grants, loans and other forms of capital from government or private philanthropic and banking sources.

 

The NCDC’s jurisdiction, as dictated by legislation introduced in April, will comprise North Coast Harbor, which consists of the more than 70-acre area that runs from Lakeside Avenue to the waterfront and includes Cleveland Browns Stadium, the Great Lakes Science Center and the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame."

 

https://www.crainscleveland.com/government/plans-north-coast-development-corp-move-forward

Not like there's any construction to watch yet, but here's a bird's eye view from a recent flight in ... 

On 5/18/2023 at 12:42 PM, Luke_S said:

Euclid Beach Trail Connector, an 'Edgewater-like park,' one step closer to becoming reality

 

 

 

https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/local/cleveland/euclid-beach-trail-connector-becoming-reality/95-d1ff5d52-854a-4960-ae88-50c9b17332be

 

The "erosion control" worries me, but heck, tentative thumbs up. 

On 5/20/2023 at 11:45 AM, Paul in Cleveland said:

Not like there's any construction to watch yet, but here's a bird's eye view from a recent flight in ... 

The harbor bridge looks rather silly from bird's eye view.

^ Agreed.  I thought it was a waste of money from the start.  If the area North of the stadium is developed, it would seem that the bridge would have made more sense at the mouth of the harbor... shorter, direct and would have been way less cost.  I am in favor of many projects, this just wasn't one of them.

I'll stick up for the bridge for a second. If you want to establish pedestrian flow in the near term, it makes all the sense in the world. The harbor mouth is long range, but the inner harbor attractions are all set and ready to go.  

 

Now that's not the end of it of course. To improve the overall experience we need to see the Rock Hall, Science Center and Voinovich Park acting in concert for programming or ways to better connect the spaces both physically and aesthetically. Plus we need lots of infill, think little shops, cafes, kiosks, etc. that will serve to make the whole area more self-contained, more intimate and less sparse feeling. 

 

Unfortunately we've not seen the high level of cooperation yet. The Science Center needs later hours and more outdoor activity. And even the Rock Hall renovation plan doesn't seem to address pedestrian flow along the water, or how they're really going to activate that cold dead cavernous area. 

 

So the bridge is perhaps underutilized, but it's really not the bridge's fault. North Coast Harbor should be ground zero for activity especially in the warmer months, but years and years after its renovation in 1990? we are still not getting the best out of that space. 

I am also not a fan of the Mather being docked at the harbor. At 600+ feet, it is taking up way too much space.  And apparently it is only open for tours on the weekend. A more suitable location for it would be somewhere in the Flats, in a channel off of the river.  Then, the Cod could be moved to the Mather's location in the harbor.  

 

Edited May 22, 20232 yr by LibertyBlvd

1 hour ago, surfohio said:

I'll stick up for the bridge for a second. If you want to establish pedestrian flow in the near term, it makes all the sense in the world. The harbor mouth is long range, but the inner harbor attractions are all set and ready to go.  

 

Now that's not the end of it of course. To improve the overall experience we need to see the Rock Hall, Science Center and Voinovich Park acting in concert for programming or ways to better connect the spaces both physically and aesthetically. Plus we need lots of infill, think little shops, cafes, kiosks, etc. that will serve to make the whole area more self-contained, more intimate and less sparse feeling. 

 

Unfortunately we've not seen the high level of cooperation yet. The Science Center needs later hours and more outdoor activity. And even the Rock Hall renovation plan doesn't seem to address pedestrian flow along the water, or how they're really going to activate that cold dead cavernous area. 

 

So the bridge is perhaps underutilized, but it's really not the bridge's fault. North Coast Harbor should be ground zero for activity especially in the warmer months, but years and years after its renovation in 1990? we are still not getting the best out of that space. 

Agree.  For all of the under-utilization of the lakefront, Voinovich Park ain't half bad.  It's just not used enough.

2 hours ago, surfohio said:

I'll stick up for the bridge for a second. If you want to establish pedestrian flow in the near term, it makes all the sense in the world. The harbor mouth is long range, but the inner harbor attractions are all set and ready to go.  

 

Now that's not the end of it of course. To improve the overall experience we need to see the Rock Hall, Science Center and Voinovich Park acting in concert for programming or ways to better connect the spaces both physically and aesthetically. Plus we need lots of infill, think little shops, cafes, kiosks, etc. that will serve to make the whole area more self-contained, more intimate and less sparse feeling. 

 

Unfortunately we've not seen the high level of cooperation yet. The Science Center needs later hours and more outdoor activity. And even the Rock Hall renovation plan doesn't seem to address pedestrian flow along the water, or how they're really going to activate that cold dead cavernous area. 

 

So the bridge is perhaps underutilized, but it's really not the bridge's fault. North Coast Harbor should be ground zero for activity especially in the warmer months, but years and years after its renovation in 1990? we are still not getting the best out of that space. 

I agree with everything you said here.  It could be more than a decade before the mouth of the harbor is a reasonable bridge location based on actual developments.  I do think the Rock Hall is at least trying to draw people towards the water, and they'd probably say there's not a ton they can do about the walkway itself since they don't own it.

 

If they're successful at making the space between the Rock Hall and Science Center more attractive with a more pleasant walk to the waterfront, I hope pedestrian traffic will follow.  Definitely coordination and places to stop along the walk for food or drinks or whatever would be even better.

On 5/20/2023 at 12:36 PM, surfohio said:

 

The "erosion control" worries me, but heck, tentative thumbs up. 

 

Since I live up there, not a fan at all.   We already have problems with public access even when it's not supposed to happen.   Focus on the existing parks.

 

Bet the trailer park people would have gotten more support if they had been in the path of the OC.

Edited May 22, 20232 yr by E Rocc

Not gonna lie, I'm still miffed that the Rock Hall hasn't prioritized a permanent outdoor concert space / amphitheater. They could have built that into the side of the extension facing the water and created a semi-permanent draw for the public.

 

Surely that would have sent a clear message that they're committed to actual community programming over whatever this is. 

 

Edited May 22, 20232 yr by ASP1984

31 minutes ago, ASP1984 said:

Not gonna lie, I'm still miffed that the Rock Hall hasn't prioritized a permanent outdoor concert space / amphitheater. They could have built that into the side of the extension facing the water and created a semi-permanent draw for the public.

 

Surely that would have sent a clear message that they're committed to actual community programming over whatever this is. 

 

 

Maybe Voinovich? 

IMHO, a narrow string of "gimmicky" shops between the Rock Hall and the Science Center would do well here, and create more pedestrian activity.  Also, would give people more of a "make a day of it" experience.  Tourists love that stuff too.  

Just now, Jenny said:

IMHO, a narrow string of "gimmicky" shops between the Rock Hall and the Science Center would do well here, and create more pedestrian activity.  Also, would give people more of a "make a day of it" experience.  Tourists love that stuff too.  

 

"Dearth" is a word I don't use very often...but there is an absolute dearth of street-level retail with the exception of the big sporting events.  In more lively cities you see entrepreneurial minded people posted up everywhere and selling whatever.   

11 minutes ago, Jenny said:

IMHO, a narrow string of "gimmicky" shops between the Rock Hall and the Science Center would do well here, and create more pedestrian activity.  Also, would give people more of a "make a day of it" experience.  Tourists love that stuff too.  

Exactly.  There is no need to make every piece of downtown a 24/7 live/work/play area with offices, apartments, hotels and such.  Just go with recreational and entertainment venues on the lakefront.

^ At this point l don't think we're in any danger of downtown becoming a 24/7 place. Let's worry about spreading the wealth when we are a little wealthier.

2 hours ago, Jenny said:

IMHO, a narrow string of "gimmicky" shops between the Rock Hall and the Science Center would do well here, and create more pedestrian activity.  Also, would give people more of a "make a day of it" experience.  Tourists love that stuff too.  

How have the shops near Voinovich park fared? I haven’t been down there since last fall, but all (both?) the storefronts were closed when I visited last.