I really don’t like the curved land bridge concept. I’m a fan of continuing the Group Plan Mall structure. Rectangular in shape, though I would appreciate more trees in those rectangles, and a lot less lawn. Off to the side(s), you can get as fancy as you want.
 

To me, the curved, disjointed bridge still gives the feel that the lakefront is a completely separate entity to downtown. A Group Plan Mall extension, gives the feel that it’s all one big downtown. IMO

 

Would also love, if they extended the Group Plan structure to the water……At the very end, some sort of iconic structure/observation tower/public art work. 

8 minutes ago, Henke said:

Was that a factor in the cost of building Browns stadium? I have always felt the fill considerations are overblown but that’s primarily coming from a place of emotion since I’m not an engineer haha 

 

I seem to remember they were able to reuse the pylons used for the original stadium to build the new one. I'm also no engineer so I don't know how much reusing the pylons would save or how much new ones would cost. 

35 minutes ago, marty15 said:

I really don’t like the curved land bridge concept. I’m a fan of continuing the Group Plan Mall structure. Rectangular in shape, though I would appreciate more trees in those rectangles, and a lot less lawn. Off to the side(s), you can get as fancy as you want.
 

To me, the curved, disjointed bridge still gives the feel that the lakefront is a completely separate entity to downtown. A Group Plan Mall extension, gives the feel that it’s all one big downtown. IMO

 

Would also love, if they extended the Group Plan structure to the water. At the very end, some sort of iconic structure/observation tower/public art work. 

Yeah, I also don't like the curved land bridge. I also wonder if part of the purpose of the curve is so that it can coexist with the current shoreway. Litt's article may have mentioned something to that effect. Obviously thinner is cheaper, but I'd rather it feel like continuous land, not a bridge. So more land bridge, less bridge bridge. The curved path is fine, but I'd rather it be a curved path on a mall sized land bridge, at least over the principal gap. It's fine if it shrinks near the science center parking garage (I might actually prefer that).

 

Edit: what if they blended into the curve sort of like this? 

 

As someone said upthread. I also want to study the renderings and presentation further. 
 

No one wants to see something finally happen on the lakefront more than me - been waiting a long time - but 

 

My concern is that we s should  resolve the stadium issue before finalizing any plans.  I suppose the land bridge can and should go forward ASAP - but if ultimately, the city and the Haslams can’t reach an agreement - and the stadium moves to the burbs - OR - if, miraculously, the stadium stays downtown but moves to a new location - 

the lakefront parcel will open up and we can really reimagine the lakefront in a comprehensive fashion. 
 

My other concern is that with Edgewater -Irishtown Bend, a new Bedrock riverfront plan including recreational  plazas  and the new CHEERS -planned east side lakefront  - could we actually  be overdoing our park spaces in a relatively small region close to downtown?  
 

I may be in the minority, but If someone came with a plan to add a whole new residential neighborhood  on the downtown lakefront - I’d be thrilled. 
 

 

Love the beach. We have a major supply-demand mismatch with centrally located beaches.

 

The overall plan gives the impression that it’s based in reality not in hopium. 
 

Lots of bones that could be picked, but I will be thrilled if this or even something almost as good *actually* gets built.

4 hours ago, marty15 said:

 

 

^ Now imagine that but the Cuyahoga River is flowing into it....and there's no sand. 

5 minutes ago, surfohio said:

 

^ Now imagine that but the Cuyahoga River is flowing into it....and there's no sand. 

I don’t know why people here think the most basic things are insurmountable feats of engineering. It’s dirt, sand, and rocks that need sorted out correctly. Do you work for the city traffic engineering department?

1 minute ago, marty15 said:

I don’t know why people here think the most basic things are insurmountable feats of engineering. It’s dirt, sand, and rocks that need sorted out correctly. Do you work for the city traffic engineering department?

 

Coastal engineering in a way that's environmentally beneficial is not basic - t's extremely difficult. You can not undo 150 years of damage without an incredible amount of investment. 

 

I'm not at all suggesting improvements should not or will not ever be done. It's just a long long way off. 

Just now, surfohio said:

 

Coastal engineering in a way that's environmentally beneficial is not basic - t's extremely difficult. You can not undo 150 years of damage without an incredible amount of investment. 

 

I'm not at all suggesting improvements should not or will not ever be done. It's just a long long way off. 

It’s not exactly “coastal engineering” at this location. It’s a pretty controlled environment inside the breakwall. No need to be dramatic.

Just now, marty15 said:

It’s not exactly “coastal engineering” at this location. It’s a pretty controlled environment inside the breakwall. No need to be dramatic.

 

Lol it's literally the definition of coast engineering. Do you know how the current will be there? I do. Trust me, it will be bad. The depth of the water there will be dangerous because none of the area is natural, it's literally built on a waste dump. If you get swept down the "beach" you will be up against the breakwall.  

3 minutes ago, surfohio said:

 

Lol it's literally the definition of coast engineering. Do you know how the current will be there? I do. Trust me, it will be bad. The depth of the water there will be dangerous because none of the area is natural, it's literally built on a waste dump. If you get swept down the "beach" you will be up against the breakwall.  

Well I guess that’s that. Everything is impossible to accomplish here in Cleveland. 100 yard strip of sand on water? Impossible. 

Cleveland needs to get it's act together. Cleveland isn't Sarasota or San Diego. It's northern city in a northern state with horrible winters that last for months. We need real designers that actually know how to develop with common sense. First thing they need to do is get rid of the stadium as it takes up too much space and is an eyesore. 

In regards to planning without a firm decision on the stadiums future - I essentially want the same out of developing the empty Lakefront land (and the land bridge) with or without the stadium. While it is here use it (and the Haslams) to leverage interest and development of the (nearly) blank slate around it. It could be well over a decade before we are done with the land bridge, roadway adjustments, multimodal station and redevelopment of existing waterfront land north of the stadium.

 

If a decision is made to renovate the stadium while all this work goes on around it, then great! If the Haslam's decide to build a new stadium elsewhere, great! Develop the newly vacant land into an expanded mixed use neighborhood. In either of these scenarios there should still be very similar infrastructure, public space and mixed use development around it outlined in the coming plans. 

 

There is a truly large amount of land available for redevelopment even with the stadium reaming in its current location. Between the stadium and lake alone there is over 22 acres of land. Just in terms of a size comparison, that's roughly as big as Navy Pier or about half an Inner Harbor. In town that's close to all of the surface lots in the Warehouse District, or about the size of Battery Park (with some adjacent developments). Lets build on those ~22 acres, and the multiuse station, and the land bridge and all the other surrounding infrastructure improvements. The stadium is not a significant impediment to any of that. 

7 hours ago, Ethan said:

I like the plan overall. I enjoy the wide mix of uses, and my initial impression is that it's well balanced. I'd personally like the land bridge to be a bit wider, and I have a few other minor critiques, but more than anything else, I'd just like something to get built.

 

I generally like the plan too, I think there’s a good balance of amenities to development. My biggest criticisms would probably be the lack of an urban street layout and the abrupt switchback on the bridge.

 

I think the width of the bridge should depend on how many people are expected to be using it, but I agree with others this design still leaves the lakefront feeling somewhat “separate” from downtown.

39 minutes ago, marty15 said:

Well I guess that’s that. Everything is impossible to accomplish here in Cleveland. 100 yard strip of sand on water? Impossible. 

 

Just like you I want - and for 30 years have wanted the shoreline in Cleveland to be made into something truly great. I don't mean to sound negative and I definitely don't want to steer anyone here away from being optimistic.   

2 hours ago, LlamaLawyer said:

Love the beach. We have a major supply-demand mismatch with centrally located beaches.

 

This has been bothering me.  How do you actually make a beach when the harbor inside the breakwall is dredged to 27-28 feet right up to the wall?  

1 hour ago, jbee1982 said:

Cleveland needs to get it's act together. Cleveland isn't Sarasota or San Diego. It's northern city in a northern state with horrible winters that last for months. We need real designers that actually know how to develop with common sense. First thing they need to do is get rid of the stadium as it takes up too much space and is an eyesore. 

 

Winters here last only for two months anymore, surrounded by elongated fall and spring. We're now in a plant hardiness zone (based on average temperatures) that used to be in Kentucky 30 years ago. And the zones continue moving north.

I am impressed at this initial plan to connect and develop the waterfront.   I think James Corner Field Operations was the perfect choice and I would like to let them further develop Malls A-B-C into their landscape plans. This would complete a path from Public Square down to Lake Erie.  Amenities I would like to see developed are public restrooms/changing facilities / bicycle/scooters/skate rentals/fishing rentals/ more places to dock boats.  I also remember fondly The Donald Gray Gardens that once occupied some of the waterfront behind the old Municipal Stadium.  Parts of Field Operations' design remind me of a contemporary take on what those gardens brought to the area

 

 

 

Let's make this happen

Edited July 28, 20231 yr by dave2017

9 hours ago, jbee1982 said:

Cleveland needs to get it's act together. Cleveland isn't Sarasota or San Diego. It's northern city in a northern state with horrible winters that last for months. We need real designers that actually know how to develop with common sense. First thing they need to do is get rid of the stadium as it takes up too much space and is an eyesore. 

I'm sick of the 'we can't have nice outdoor things because it's sometimes cold outside' attitude. Will this area see a lot of use in mid November - mid March? No, probably not, but it will get a lot of use from mid-May to mid September, and decent use the rest of the year. Lots of other "northern" cities have nice large downtown parks (including New York and Chicago). I think Cleveland can manage just as well. 

 

--

 

Now, with respect to the claim being made by some that Cleveland's downtown is oversaturated with parks,  I disagree radically. I wrote out a long post arguing this before, so I'll just quote it here. 

 

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! 

 

5 minutes ago, Ethan said:

I'm sick of the 'we can't have nice outdoor things because it's sometimes cold outside' attitude. Will this area see a lot of use in mid November - mid March? No, probably not, but it will get a lot of use from mid-May to mid September, and decent use the rest of the year. Lots of other "northern" cities have nice large downtown parks (including New York and Chicago). I think Cleveland can manage just as well. 

Put an ice rink there.  Problem solved.

1 minute ago, LibertyBlvd said:

Put an ice rink there.  Problem solved.

If past experience is any guide, I wouldn't be surprised if the "water play" area on the current plan is intended to be a splash pad in the summer and an ice rink in the winter, similar to the one on public square. 

If this forum is any indication, I bet those public input meetings are a lot of fun for the individuals running them.😉

9 hours ago, surfohio said:

 

Just like you I want - and for 30 years have wanted the shoreline in Cleveland to be made into something truly great. I don't mean to sound negative and I definitely don't want to steer anyone here away from being optimistic.   

If the good people of James Corner discussed including a beach, and then decided to include it in their renders, they must not believe it’s some insurmountable feat to accomplish. We have verifiable momentum and political will right now. I’m gonna choose to be optimistic.

 

City reveals its lakefront vision

By Ken Prendergast / July 28, 2023

 

A preliminary design for downtown lakefront improvements was unveiled yesterday by the city and its consulting team at the Great Lakes Science Center to advance the project development process. The process would then move into final design, fundraising and environmental permitting so construction could begin possibly in the next two years. But there are some notable differences in the city’s lakefront vision when compared to one commissioned and released two years ago by the owners of the Cleveland Browns football team, The Haslam Group.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2023/07/28/city-reveals-its-lakefront-vision/

 

Of all the lakefront plans that have been unveiled over the years, has there ever been one without the stadium?  It would be nice to see so we can compare and contrast.

13 hours ago, CleveFan said:

My other concern is that with Edgewater -Irishtown Bend, a new Bedrock riverfront plan including recreational  plazas  and the new CHEERS -planned east side lakefront  - could we actually  be overdoing our park spaces in a relatively small region close to downtown?

 

I don’t think so. The small- to mid-size parks being built in the urban core will be more accessible than a lot of the larger metroparks further out, and if we expect the number of residents in and around downtown to grow then it doesn’t seem unreasonable to expand park amenities as well.

 

Cleveland has an excess of empty land, so hopefully preserving some of it as greenspace will allow the rest of it to densify further. I’d like to see the city focus most of its development energy on existing neighborhoods, so utilizing most of the lakefront as public space while still extending the edge of downtown seems like the right move.

11 hours ago, KJP said:

Winters here last only for two months anymore, surrounded by elongated fall and spring. We're now in a plant hardiness zone (based on average temperatures) that used to be in Kentucky 30 years ago. And the zones continue moving north.

With increasing energy in the atmosphere we're going to see more "chaos" in our weather -- more deep freezes like we had at Christmas 2022 that are REALLY cold but short-lived.  What that means for plant hardiness remains to be seen. 

 

It has been noted upthread that this design greatly reduces the amount of residential/mixed-use building in this design compared to previous designs.  I wonder if this is part of the Haslams' dispute with the city ("dispute" may or may not be too strong).  But I also wonder whether residential buildings could be incorporated into/surrounding the stadium itself.  Mixed-use buildings with their backs up against or just a few feet from the stadium structure would provide stadium revenue year-round.  And a place for bars and restaurants for pre-game, in-game, and post-game revenue generation.

3 hours ago, LibertyBlvd said:

Of all the lakefront plans that have been unveiled over the years, has there ever been one without the stadium?  It would be nice to see so we can compare and contrast.

I’ve never seen one but I’ll take this opportunity to share these photos of the 1987 plan as a fun comparison to yesterday’s announcement. 

The scope of the city’s plan says to me that the Bibb Admin has decided to emphasize public access over intensive development on the lakefront.  I’d say City Hall is putting most of their chips on Gilbert’s riverfront plan over Haslam’s lakefront.

 

My concern is that this lakefront plan, like Flats East Bank, will stall out just short of success.

30 minutes ago, Dougal said:

The scope of the city’s plan says to me that the Bibb Admin has decided to emphasize public access over intensive development on the lakefront.  I’d say City Hall is putting most of their chips on Gilbert’s riverfront plan over Haslam’s lakefront.

 

My concern is that this lakefront plan, like Flats East Bank, will stall out just short of success.

Really all this thing needs to do to be a success is complete all the infrastructure pieces Including the beach. The rest can figure it was out on its own. Give people a reason to be down there in the summer. 

24 minutes ago, Dougal said:

The scope of the city’s plan says to me that the Bibb Admin has decided to emphasize public access over intensive development on the lakefront.  I’d say City Hall is putting most of their chips on Gilbert’s riverfront plan over Haslam’s lakefront.

 

My concern is that this lakefront plan, like Flats East Bank, will stall out just short of success.

The Haslam and Gilbert/Bedrock plans seemed to be very similar - offices, hotels, residential - and unlikely that both would be able to go forward as planned.  Perhaps the Bibb admin realized that.  And maybe the FAA voiced their concern about high-rise towers encroaching on Burke, even though not directly in the flight path.

Where does the money come from to pay for this? According to KJP's article, the additional development in the Haslam plan was to help pay for some of the work to build this area out. But if they don't have that component and this is mostly public access/park space..and if the Haslams/Browns aren't into that... does that put the whole thing into limbo?

 

 

 

For some reason money is always the hangup. I don't get it.

I apologize in advance for not reading thoroughly about this plan, but is it really feasible for a beach to be in such close proximity to deep shipping lanes and the river? The land bridge looks like a lot more bridge than land in this plan, which still makes the lakefront seem detached from downtown. As for the stadium, I would love to see a replacement built elsewhere downtown, like the area north of Playhouse Square that was hinted at previously. But unless there is a plan of something substantial to occupy that lakefront spot, why move? There seems to be no shortage of areas that could be developed. The only real negatives I can think about the stadium staying there is that it blocks the view of downtown from the proposed lakefront park and it limits what stadium renovations can be made. I'm not a fan of an Amtrak station tucked under the land bridge. It seems like an afterthought. I am still hopeful that somehow it can be moved to CUT where it belongs. So I wish the bridge had more "land" to it and I'd like there to be more activities like maybe a ferris wheel, if practical on the windy lakeshore. I am really hopeful that something will get done. I just hope it will be done in a way that makes it another reason for people to brag about Cleveland. 

6 hours ago, KFM44107 said:

Really all this thing needs to do to be a success is complete all the infrastructure pieces Including the beach. The rest can figure it was out on its own. Give people a reason to be down there in the summer. 

You’re exactly right. Build the land bridge, a park strip to the water, the beach, and a street grid with utilities. Everything else will take care of itself. 

 

And this land bridge does NOT need to be fancy. The curving shape is unnecessary and doesn’t mesh with anything. This should be an extension of the mall to the water, basic as that may seem. And they should be looking to save money wherever they can to make this actually feasible. 

14 hours ago, sonisharri said:

 

I don’t think so. The small- to mid-size parks being built in the urban core will be more accessible than a lot of the larger metroparks further out, and if we expect the number of residents in and around downtown to grow then it doesn’t seem unreasonable to expand park amenities as well.

 

Cleveland has an excess of empty land, so hopefully preserving some of it as greenspace will allow the rest of it to densify further. I’d like to see the city focus most of its development energy on existing neighborhoods, so utilizing most of the lakefront as public space while still extending the edge of downtown seems like the right move.

Cleveland may have an excess of empty land, but what it doesn't have is a labor force in the city that shows up to work.  So all this new greenspace better be put under the stewardship of the Metroparks, otherwise there will be little-to-no maintenance.  

2 hours ago, Cleburger said:

Cleveland may have an excess of empty land, but what it doesn't have is a labor force in the city that shows up to work.  So all this new greenspace better be put under the stewardship of the Metroparks, otherwise there will be little-to-no maintenance.  

Seriously 

16 hours ago, TMart said:

The land bridge looks like a lot more bridge than land in this plan, which still makes the lakefront seem detached from downtown. 

 

I think this is a good comment. Plus, the design seems to make it difficult to add on to in the future. Is it the city's assumption that the landbridge will never be widened in future decades? 

Some random thoughts ...

 

If the plan is to build a structure over the stadium to enclose it, that will make it larger and will likely look quite hideous.

 

Maybe just do a simpler, narrower land bridge initially which can be widened later if necessary.

 

The beach seems unnecessary since there is already a beach nearby at Edgewater. There is a beach even closer at Wendy Park, although I don't think it is being well maintained currently.  The water quality at the harbor is going to be quite nasty.

 

An amphitheater is a good idea, but I'd rather see something classier than what is shown in the rendering.

 

It's nice to know someone else remembers the Donald Gray Gardens. I believe a lot of migratory birds used to stop there.  Perhaps this is an opportunity to create version 2.0.

 

As I mentioned previously, I think the Mather should be relocated. At over 600 feet, it is taking up too much space.

 

I always hoped to see an aquarium on the lakefront, something larger and nicer than the current one.  Maybe that can be added to the mix while we are dreaming.

 

And the million dollar question, or should I say the billion dollar question: where is the money coming from to do this?

 

Edited July 30, 20231 yr by LibertyBlvd

Reading between the lines, it seems like there may be *some* uncertainty around the future of Burke, though the safe assumption is probably that it stays put.

 

From the Crain's article on Bryant Francis, Hopkins' new Director of Port Control:

 

"Asked at Friday’s event about Burke Lakefront Airport and talks of shuttering runways to make way for more lakefront development projects, Francis was careful to point out that he is “an airport guy” and noted there are at least two studies underway looking at land usage.

 

“I do see where Burke is placed. … I know there is a lot of time and effort going into the hard decisions around this issue,” he said." 

 

1 minute ago, Luke_S said:

Cleveland Hopkins in 2023 will see a completed master plan and 10 million passenger visits

Kim Palmer | July 28th 2023

 

"[Bryant] Francis, who has been in the [director of port control] for about two months, said the airport is looking at a 2023 with two big developments: hitting passenger/visitor numbers of 10 million for the first time since 2019, and finalizing Hopkins’ 20-year master plan.

 

... 

 

The first phase of the master plan predicts needs based on an increase to around 11 million annual passengers, with those improvements costing between $800 million and $900 million.

 

Planned infrastructure changes will increase the ticketing/check-in area by more than 3,000 square feet; nearly double the security screening checkpoint square footage; increase the number of gates to 53 from 45 while also increasing the seating capacity at the gates; and add 4,000 more parking spaces to the 65,000 currently available, he said."

 

https://www.crainscleveland.com/government/cleveland-hopkins-2023-see-passengers-climb-above-10m

 

27 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

The beach seems unnecessary since there is already a beach nearby at Edgewater, and even closer at Wendy Park, although I don't think it is well maintained currently.

Edgewater is frequently shut down and people have to park in the grass. The people are showing there is more demand for a beach/lakefront park in Cleveland than we currently offer 

Just now, BoomerangCleRes said:

Edgewater is frequently shut down and people have to park in the grass. The people are showing there is more demand for a beach/lakefront park in Cleveland than we currently offer 

 

I agree, but I think an expanded Gordon Park is better suited to serve that role. And if we can do that, plus redevelop the vacant FirstEnergy Lake Shore Power Station site at the top of Rockefeller Park (multimodal links to UC, downtown and overlooking the lake) and support the growing arts district just south of the tracks, I think that area should be at least as hot as Battery Park/Gordon Square.

3 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

I agree, but I think an expanded Gordon Park is better suited to serve that role. And if we can do that, plus redevelop the vacant FirstEnergy Lake Shore Power Station site at the top of Rockefeller Park (multimodal links to UC, downtown and overlooking the lake) and support the growing arts district just south of the tracks, I think that area should be at least as hot as Battery Park/Gordon Square.

Agreed, honestly could be even hotter plus would bring more attention to the often overlooked cultural gardens.

I do think something like a sugar beach in Toronto would be nice. Don’t need to build an actual beach just a sandy area close to the water. 

we’ve been trying to get something around the browns stadium for so long but yet some how a smaller league like the mls that makes 56x less in revenue than the nfl has no problem building/planning these sports village developments in no time not to mention two in our own state. 
https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2023/07/28/fc-cincinnatis-stadium-area-development-to-include-music-venue/70488337007/

2 hours ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

Edgewater is frequently shut down and people have to park in the grass. The people are showing there is more demand for a beach/lakefront park in Cleveland than we currently offer 

 

Fair point. Access to not just NCH but our entire lakefront needs drastic improvement.

 

The beaches in Cleveland outside of Edgewater (talking east of downtown and NOT within the breakwall) are historically hard to get to as their almost all surrounded by private property. That coupled with really bad decisions made in the guise of erosion control have unfortunately led to a lot of the sand beaches disappearing almost entirely. It is sad to see old pics of what used to be.  

 

New access points to the actual water would be amazing but only if they could be designed safely. Launch areas for kayaks, SUPs etc. would be a huge. 

 

It would be very interesting to see what could be done with Wendy Park. There are a few key strikes against it as a swimming beach, but their initial wetland and boardwalk plans looked promising. 

4 hours ago, LibertyBlvd said:

 

I always hoped to see an aquarium on the lakefront, something larger and nicer than the current one.  Maybe that can be added to the mix while we are dreaming.

I could get on board with this, though what our current aquarium lacks in size it makes up for in charm.  It's perfect for families and a unique reuse of an historic building.

 

If one more major attraction were added to the lakefront, I'd love to see it be a 'Superman Museum' to leverage one of the most iconic creations to come from Cleveland.  I envision a large horizontal Superman statue outside this museum situated to have photos taken with lake and/or skyline as background.

Bibb! Get me a small, carnival-like amusement park where those basketball courts are. With a ferris wheel! Too much wasted space there.

There is a survey link for input but it's pretty pathetic. Basically allows for nothing substantive for input, but somehow has an odd question about "porch" structures.

 

 https://clevelandnorthcoast.com/north-coast-master-plan/

 

I also listened to the workshop discussion linked to Youtube and it didn't give me an overall great impression. A lot of niceties but not enough substance. I'm afraid if this does move forward it won't be done with proper synergy and will be like a "silver bullet" project from the 90's that won't get developer support to pull it off correctly. Basically a nice park in front of the stadium that nobody uses after the novelty wears off. 

Edited July 29, 20231 yr by Rustbelter

6 hours ago, KJP said:

 

I agree, but I think an expanded Gordon Park is better suited to serve that role. And if we can do that, plus redevelop the vacant FirstEnergy Lake Shore Power Station site at the top of Rockefeller Park (multimodal links to UC, downtown and overlooking the lake) and support the growing arts district just south of the tracks, I think that area should be at least as hot as Battery Park/Gordon Square.

 

Yeah, per Bibb's own quote "As a Black kid growing up in the city, we always felt the lakefront was not for us. It was for rich white folks on the West Side" 

 

Seems like focusing on Gordon Park would better serve this goal, not downtown. Also, don't know where all these rich white folks supposedly live that are hanging out on the lake? Cleveland lacks pretty much any "rich" areas. This comment is unnecessarily decisive; reminds me of something Mayor Lightfoot might say about Chicago (at least there this would hold more true). 

 

Edited July 29, 20231 yr by Rustbelter

If those little dots are people, this land bridge is about to be enormous. I just hope they add enough green space and planters to balance all that concrete.