I don’t think the land bridge has changed at all from what we saw over the summer. 
 

For reference, here’s what the city showed us in July:

 

Here is the Haslam design:

 

1 hour ago, Henke said:

I don’t think the land bridge has changed at all from what we saw over the summer. 
 

For reference, here’s what the city showed us in July:

 

Here is the Haslam design:

 

I think what everyone wants, is the continuation of the Mall, at least to bridge over the tracks and shoreway, to not feel like a bridge to a whole separate area, like we’ve always had. I wish the Field Operations people understood that. It’s really the most important objective. The Haslam plan got that part right.

2 hours ago, Henke said:

I don’t think the land bridge has changed at all from what we saw over the summer. 
 

For reference, here’s what the city showed us in July:

 

Here is the Haslam design:

 

That was what I was referring to- thanks for the photos.

 

Yes- the Haslem land bridge looks sexier. But a 120 foot-wide land bridge is almost twice the width of many of our major streets in the Cleveland Region. For reference, Warrensville Center Road is 68 feet wide. A 120 foot width for pedestrians to cross is a lot of room and will “feel” like a land bridge when you’re crossing. If it actually happens, I think most would like it.

3 hours ago, Ethan said:

I think, you've basically described the concern pretty well actually. The point of comparison you used was a street, or more accurately, a normal bridge. This was originally sold as a "Landbridge."

 

I asked the question somewhere on this forum, how narrow can a Landbridge get before it becomes just a bridge with a wide sidewalk? The answer I got from another commenter, is that the the bridge should have a cap portion that does double duty as something else, either as a base for buildings or as a park. I think it's a fair question at what point this bridge becomes narrow enough that it might be more fairly described as a wide pedestrian bridge than as a "landbridge" (I.e. a park doing double duty as a bridge).

 

Put another way, I'm not sure you'll be able to forget you're on a bridge with this new design the same way you can on the landbridge to the Gateway Arch in St. Louis, or even on prospect street, there may just not be enough width. Again, not saying the design is bad, but that's the concern.  

I agree with all of this. Also there needs to be something inviting at the head of the bridge when your walking north to actually attract people down further. Obviously this is only 60 percent but that big gap in the middle surely isn't the right idea. Impossible to forget your on a bridge if you can look right down to the creepy underpass. Fill that in with a building or a park and you might be getting closer to making it feel all connected.

2 hours ago, marty15 said:

I think what everyone wants, is the continuation of the Mall, at least to bridge over the tracks and shoreway, to not feel like a bridge to a whole separate area, like we’ve always had. I wish the Field Operations people understood that. It’s really the most important objective. The Haslam plan got that part right.

 

2 hours ago, marty15 said:

I think what everyone wants, is the continuation of the Mall, at least to bridge over the tracks and shoreway, to not feel like a bridge to a whole separate area, like we’ve always had. I wish the Field Operations people understood that. It’s really the most important objective. The Haslam plan got that part right.

On the bridge, why the 'Y'?

2 hours ago, urb-a-saurus said:

 

On the bridge, why the 'Y'?

The sacred convention center windows? 

Not sure they need the east section of the Y.

 

I assume the transportation center can be a accessed from the bridge.

 

Edited October 22, 20231 yr by LibertyBlvd

3 hours ago, urb-a-saurus said:

 

On the bridge, why the 'Y'?

Maybe they’re planning to put a place to eat there.

On 8/14/2023 at 6:40 PM, Ethan said:

It is, I'm pretty sure that to the powers that be insulating the highway from the waves is far and away the primary purpose of this project, building the park is merely a secondary benefit. Now, to me, and I assume @Ineffable_Matt, the park is the primary benefit. The highway should never have been built there in the first place. 

 

The worst wave crashing happens to the east, where the freeway goes right up against the lake.   That part is both 2 and 90.

55 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

The worst wave crashing happens to the east, where the freeway goes right up against the lake.   That part is both 2 and 90.

 Yes. But given context, this conversation is currently focused on the North Coast Harbor section of the lakefront which is Rt2... 

3 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

 Yes. But given context, this conversation is currently focused on the North Coast Harbor section of the lakefront which is Rt2... 

 

It's hard to imagine major changes to one that won't impact the other, especially if the objective is improving lake access.

On 8/3/2023 at 2:56 PM, GISguy said:

 

This thread is going to get shut down but I'll pile on against better judgement. Don't you live in Collinwood? One of the few areas of the city that has ample (and a ton of private) lake access? All the beach "clubs" are busy all summer long I'm sure. Allowing the public to have more access to an amazing inland sea is only right. Condos/neighborhoods don't belong everywhere. There are like 5 bars/restaurants on the lakefront in the county, in the city? We have the metroparks and private marinas. I always talk with my urbanist friends about how it sucks that there are so few access points to the lake within city limits (that aren't Collinwood or Edgewater). The 55th/72nd Marinas are bumping in the summers, likewise E9 Pier is nuts with people on summer nights. It'd be nice if these spaces weren't just big parking lots with very little lake access - more like here! watch the sunset from your car at 55/72.

 

 

Missed this one the first time around.

 

Yeah, I’ve lived in Collinwood for seven plus years, alongside a (supposedly) private park that abuts the lake.   Of course we have more lake access than other parts of the city.   East of downtown, we’re the only stretch of shore that’s not taken up by infrastructure, Gordon Park, or Bratenhal.

 

Still, you have Wildwood and Euclid Beach parks in Collinwood.    Euclid has parks as well.   I’m not sure why the metroparks running them are a problem.  

 

It’s kind of my role here to say the quiet parts out loud, and this one hits close to home.  Public areas in the city and the inner ring must be aggressively policed, especially overnight.  Otherwise, they bring crime and blight that spreads into the daytime.   We’re fortunate in Beulah, we can call the cops or sewer district because anyone who is not a resident or guest is trespassing.   Public parks?   Not so much.

 

Does the city have the police resources to do this?

Just a press release rewrite but with some bigger, clearer images (don't forget to click on them). Some of the originals were 30+ MB....

 

 

North Coast plans updated, go public today
By Ken Prendergast / October 23, 2023

 

In a virtual session held earlier today, the community got to see a refinement of plans for Downtown Cleveland’s lakefront that were first shared publicly in July, namely for the area near North Coast Harbor. The plans, showing stadium renovations, transportation investments and conversion of lakefront parking lots to year-round public uses, were developed and refined by a consulting team hired by the city and led by Field Operations, a public spaces design firm based in New York City.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2023/10/23/north-coast-plans-updated-go-public-today/

Noticed they sneaked in a "20 year vision for TOD" to the east. 

18 minutes ago, Rustbelter said:

Noticed they sneaked in a "20 year vision for TOD" to the east. 

 

That site might be more attractive to development if the Waterfront Line went somewhere beyond the parking lot, as was originally intended.

Ken, looks quite beautiful even with a 10 events per year stagnadium occupying most of the porch. 

 

P.S.  Can't tell on my phone if this is our own North coast elephant seal colony. Imported from the west coast.

 

4 minutes ago, DO_Summers said:

Ken, looks quite beautiful even with a 10 events per year stagnadium occupying most of the porch. 

 

P.S.  Can't tell on my phone if this is our own North coast elephant seal colony. Imported from the west coast.

 

 

It's the official Polar Bear Society Summer Sun Fun Day.

13 minutes ago, DO_Summers said:

Ken, looks quite beautiful even with a 10 events per year stagnadium occupying most of the porch. 

 

P.S.  Can't tell on my phone if this is our own North coast elephant seal colony. Imported from the west coast.

 

They booked at the Hilton for their Cleveland visit, but were surprised to find the hotel had relocated to the Sun Belt.

I really really like this plan. I think it's extremely cohesive and well thought out. I know the previous land bridge design was sexy, but at this point this gets the job done and seems more feasible. Another thing I noticed in the plans was how the perimeter of Voinovich park was updated with stairs. 

 

I just wish the stadium could have a retractable roof so allow for more programming since it takes up so much space. 

1 hour ago, DO_Summers said:

Ken, looks quite beautiful even with a 10 events per year stagnadium occupying most of the porch. 

 

P.S.  Can't tell on my phone if this is our own North coast elephant seal colony. Imported from the west coast.

 

 

They're either rocks or discarded tires...

22 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

Missed this one the first time around.

 

Yeah, I’ve lived in Collinwood for seven plus years, alongside a (supposedly) private park that abuts the lake.   Of course we have more lake access than other parts of the city.   East of downtown, we’re the only stretch of shore that’s not taken up by infrastructure, Gordon Park, or Bratenhal.

 

Still, you have Wildwood and Euclid Beach parks in Collinwood.    Euclid has parks as well.   I’m not sure why the metroparks running them are a problem.  

 

It’s kind of my role here to say the quiet parts out loud, and this one hits close to home.  Public areas in the city and the inner ring must be aggressively policed, especially overnight.  Otherwise, they bring crime and blight that spreads into the daytime.   We’re fortunate in Beulah, we can call the cops or sewer district because anyone who is not a resident or guest is trespassing.   Public parks?   Not so much.

 

Does the city have the police resources to do this?

 

this is true. thats why edgewater is relatively ok even with vagrants as its isolated from residential. same for our nyc public beaches out here for the most part. otoh lakeview in lorain directly abuts residential and had problems forever at night until they finally closed off side street access. they may have closed off actual park access at night for cars too, im not sure.

on the east side smallish century park is wide open and has some troubles at night, but parking is right up against east erie ave aka rt6 and so its easily patrolled. also, night fishing is thing there, which helps.

Nice and all. It is lovely and worthy of the oohs & ahhs.

 

It prepares for a destination that will stil feel like we all need to cross a bridge over the railroad tracks to visit the Cleveland waterfront.  It will still be - 'that place over there."

 

Spend the money during phase one of this projec to connect the city to our lakefront - for real - with the broad parklike land bridge concept; not the Y bridge.

 

Don't scarifice this one time opportunity to make the outstanding genuine connection between the water and the city that we're all seeking .

Edited October 24, 20231 yr by ExPatClevGuy

i liked the original land bridge better, not because its wider and flashier, but because it comes down to earth right away. the newer version carries all the way past the stadium to the lakefront. not sure why? it looks like to accommodate a road around the stadium? maybe that is needed for access and like for emergencies? i dk. 

 

also, it looks like the step down to the lake is envisioned as an ampitheater facing residential, is that right? not that it would be used in that way continuously, but you would not want that if you lived there.

 

i like the y on the new bridge version, that will be pretty cool i think. and of course that transit improvement is in the mix.

 

 

 

Edited October 24, 20231 yr by mrnyc

12 hours ago, KJP said:

Just a press release rewrite but with some bigger, clearer images (don't forget to click on them). Some of the originals were 30+ MB....

 

 

North Coast plans updated, go public today
By Ken Prendergast / October 23, 2023

 

In a virtual session held earlier today, the community got to see a refinement of plans for Downtown Cleveland’s lakefront that were first shared publicly in July, namely for the area near North Coast Harbor. The plans, showing stadium renovations, transportation investments and conversion of lakefront parking lots to year-round public uses, were developed and refined by a consulting team hired by the city and led by Field Operations, a public spaces design firm based in New York City.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2023/10/23/north-coast-plans-updated-go-public-today/

 

 

Another great article, Ken, as always. It states that the development team will continue seeking public input through the Fall. Is there any rough timeline in place for when they actually want to get shovels in the ground? @KJP

I am also very curious as to which development other UO members are more excited for? This or the riverfront project. 

I don't have much of an opinion yet because I know each are evolving and some changes will be made along the way. If executed properly, both should turnout to be fantastic. 

But I would definitely like to hear some peoples opinions. Maybe a poll?

16 minutes ago, GREGinPARMA said:

I am also very curious as to which development other UO members are more excited for? This or the riverfront project. 

I don't have much of an opinion yet because I know each are evolving and some changes will be made along the way. If executed properly, both should turnout to be fantastic. 

But I would definitely like to hear some peoples opinions. Maybe a poll?

I am equally excited for both Bedrock's development and The Lakefront.  I wait to see how these develop over the coming years.  The one that excites me the most of getting completed is neither of these but instead Irishtown Bend Park.  

12 minutes ago, dave2017 said:

I am equally excited for both Bedrock's development and The Lakefront.  I wait to see how these develop over the coming years.  The one that excites me the most of getting completed is neither of these but instead Irishtown Bend Park.  

Definitely have to agree with you there!

40 minutes ago, dave2017 said:

I am equally excited for both Bedrock's development and The Lakefront.  I wait to see how these develop over the coming years.  The one that excites me the most of getting completed is neither of these but instead Irishtown Bend Park.  

It’s almost inconceivable to me how different the city will look and feel if all 3 of these projects come to fruition.   Not to mention the CHEERS project on the east side.  So looking forward to all!

1 hour ago, GREGinPARMA said:

 

 

Another great article, Ken, as always. It states that the development team will continue seeking public input through the Fall. Is there any rough timeline in place for when they actually want to get shovels in the ground? @KJP

 

Given that this is federally compliant planning process, intended to be eligible for federal funds from multiple pots of funding from federal agencies (Federal Highway Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, Federal Transit Administration, Housing and Urban Development, Army Corps of Engineers, etc), we're probably another year from completing preliminary engineering. Then there has to be an environmental Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI) by each relevant agency. That will take many monyhs. But if the city gets FONSIs for each element, it will allow the city to apply for federal funds for final engineering and construction for each part of the project overseen by individual agencies. Assuming all requested funding will be secured in a timely manner, there's going to be another year or two before construction begins. When done, I won't be surprised to see that this is a $1 billion project (downgrading Shoreway, land bridge, park, water's edge, multimodal transportation center, the Villages, etc). That doesn't even take into account the stadium which is probably going to be another $1 billion.

1 hour ago, GREGinPARMA said:

I am also very curious as to which development other UO members are more excited for? This or the riverfront project. 

One thing we need to keep in mind is the lakefront can be quite brutal for several months from late fall until early spring so I'm wondering how many folks will be veturing down there during that timeframe. And no roof on the stadium means no additional events there. Whereas the riverfront is likely to see activity year-round.

 

Edited October 24, 20231 yr by LibertyBlvd

This is a beautiful plan. A few notes.

 

1) The land bridge being 120 feet wide isn't going to feel like a little pedestrian bridge over train tracks. That's twice the width of the right of way of the cross streets in Manhattan for instance. That's more than enough to create a proper park like atmosphere that feels cohesive.

2) I'm curious how they plan on activating this with programming throughout the year. It's an enormous amount of park space that won't be full otherwise and will require smart programming to feel utilized and not awkwardly empty.

3) The one piece of disappointment from me is the proportion of park to building. Year round activation requires more people living, working, and staying there. The buildings as shown are too small and too few. I'd enlarge each slightly and find a way to add another block of buildings somewhere.

2 hours ago, ExPatClevGuy said:

Nice and all. It is lovely and worthy of the oohs & ahhs.

 

It prepares for a destination that will stil feel like we all need to cross a bridge over the railroad tracks to visit the Cleveland waterfront.  It will still be - 'that place over there."

 

Spend the money during phase one of this projec to connect the city to our lakefront - for real - with the broad parklike land bridge concept; not the Y bridge.

 

Don't scarifice this one time opportunity to make the outstanding genuine connection between the water and the city that we're all seeking .

I understand this sentiment, but I think the way to get the best of both worlds here is to build it with possibility of expanding it later. That way, even if you never end up expanding it, you haven't actually sacrificed the opportunity to have a wider crossing. I put a very quick sketch up of a way this could maybe, possibly be done below. No idea if it's feasible or realistic. My main point, is that I'd like this be built with an eye towards future expansion so that we can have a connection down to the lake as quickly as possible, while also preserving the possibility of extending this to be a more substantial cap at a later point. 

 

 

2 hours ago, mrnyc said:

i liked the original land bridge better, not because its wider and flashier, but because it comes down to earth right away. the newer version carries all the way past the stadium to the lakefront. not sure why? it looks like to accommodate a road around the stadium? maybe that is needed for access and like for emergencies? i dk. 

 

also, it looks like the step down to the lake is envisioned as an ampitheater facing residential, is that right? not that it would be used in that way continuously, but you would not want that if you lived there.

 

i like the y on the new bridge version, that will be pretty cool i think. and of course that transit improvement is in the mix.

 

 

 

I agree with a lot of this. I like how the green ribbon coalition's plan came down to earth (literally) immediately. I personally really like how they're handling the northern terminus of this bridge. The amphitheater seating as layed out here will work much better from a pedestrian flow perspective than the Haslam's plan which I think forced everyone to exit East. 

 

I'd also say that since they've refined and added what looks like a very nice connection to the Rock Hall / Science Center, I'm less concerned about not landing immediately. As long as it feels natural to pedestrians it's fine. 

 

I think a combination of the southern part of the Haslam's plan with the northern half of this plan (so basically the width of the Haslam connection, but everything else from this plan) would be ideal. Pretty much what I proposed as phase 2 above. 

 

--

 

(Also, I realize the convention center brings in money, but I'm kind of sick of all it's accomodations. It seriously detracts from Mall B (view, flatness) and it's now looking like it's going to take a serious bite out of our landbridge... I get it, but I don't like it.)

 

--

 

Also, people keep saying the landbridge is wide enough to feel like a park, and then using streets as the comparison for the width, which I think is telling. Instead of saying it's twice the width of certain roads, it's more useful to say it's ~1/4-1/3 the width of the malls. @jmicha @Oldmanladyluck

33 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

One thing we need to keep in mind is the lakefront can be quite brutal for several months from late fall until early spring so I'm wondering how many folks will be veturing down there during that timeframe. And no roof on the stadium means no additional events there. Whereas the riverfront is likely to see activity year-round.

 

Are any of the "porch" areas adaptable for winter activities, e.g. skating, snowman building, etc?

I like the plan. But, it needs more residential components. 

 

My other concern is upkeep of the common areas and park space. I think a whole city crew will be needed to maintain the landscaping.

31 minutes ago, dski44 said:

I like the plan. But, it needs more residential components. 

 

My other concern is upkeep of the common areas and park space. I think a whole city crew will be needed to maintain the landscaping.

 

And, as @jmicha said, there isn't enough commercial property in the plan to pay the taxes to support the maintenance of the public portion.

I would love to see Field Operations take on completion/activation of Malls A-B-C.  That last plan that did GGN should be incorporated into this design

 

Edited October 24, 20231 yr by dave2017

5 minutes ago, dave2017 said:

I would love to see Field Operations take on completion/activation of Malls A-B-C.  That last plan that did GGN should be incorporated into this design

 

Do you have a link to this plan?

 

Edit: also, isn't this basically what we got? 

14 minutes ago, Ethan said:

Do you have a link to this plan?

 

Edit: also, isn't this basically what we got? 

https://www.ggnltd.com/connecting-downtown-cleveland-master-plan

I hate to sound in any way negative, but I just wish they would put forth a vision of the stadium lakefront parcel  without the stadium on it -  revealing what possibilities could then be developed. Letting us imagine that paradigm. 
 

We’re about to make an immense decision about the future of the city - as a lakefront city and hopefully a  destination for residents and visitors alike.  I feel like if people could actually see a vision of what could be done on our lakefront - without the dominating presence  of a large stadium - it could excite our population base  and move the needle to where the funding for a new stadium location might be possible.  
 

But we’re starting with the fundamental and limiting construct  that moving the stadium is impossible - so what we’re getting is 90% driven by that “reality”. 

 

Do we really see multiple thousands of people walking down from Public Square or Euclid Avenue to use a  land bridge on a regular basis to walk around the new plazas  outside the stadium? 

 

The new summer-ish renderings are nice , an aesthetic improvement over current reality  - but I fear that, for the vast majority of days during the year- we simply won’t have  many people taking the long walk from the heart of the downtown to a lakefront where there is still little to actually do there.  
 

When you look up the “best urban waterfront cities” in the country -a common theme is - a variety of things to do. 
 

Think of places like Baltimore’s inner harbor, Washington DC’s wharf, Chicago’s Navy Pier, Coney  Island, NY, the San Francisco pier  - all attractions to waterfronts offering much beyond being near the waterfront. 
 

Our new lakefront can’t be a beach   - we know that area doesn’t support a beach - it’s an urban downtown waterfront.  But Without more residential components, restaurants, entertainment and shopping options - I fear it will remain a largely underused place, except on game days.  
 

I’m pleased to see the latest plan now showing. Some residential and hotel component - I just wish the area could really be envisioned as a blank canvas for development that brings many people to the water’s edge throughout the year - but this plan is largely an aesthetic upgrade to the current waterfront - not a substantive reimagining of it unfortunately. 

Edited October 26, 20231 yr by CleveFan

FYI - there is an updated new survey posted on the City's website about the project for providing feedback.

https://clevelandnorthcoast.com/

 

 

12 minutes ago, CleveFan said:

I hate to sound in any way negative, but I just wish they would put forth a vision of the stadium lakefront parcel  without the stadium on it -  revealing what possibilities could then be developed. Letting us imagine that paradigm. 
 

We’re about to make an immense decision about the future of the city - as a lakefront city and hopefully a  destination for residents and visitors alike.  I feel like if people could actually see a vision of what could be done on our lakefront - without the dominating presence  of a large stadium - it could excite our population base  and move the needle to where the funding for a new stadium location might be possible.  
 

But we’re starting with the fundamental and limiting construct  that moving the stadium is impossible - so what we’re getting is 90% driven by that “reality”. 

 

Do we really see multiple thousands of people walking down from Public Square or Euclid Avenue to use a  land bridge on a regular basis to walk around the new plazas  outside the stadium? 

 

The new summer-ish renderings are nice , an aesthetic improvement over current reality  - but I fear that, for the vast majority of days during the year- we simply won’t have  many people taking the long walk from the heart of the downtown to a lakefront where there is still little to actually do there.  
 

When you look up the “best urban waterfront cities” in the country -a common theme is - a variety of things to do. 
 

Think of places like Baltimore’s inner harbor, Washington DC’s wharf, Chicago’s Navy Pier, Coney  Island, NY, the San Francisco pier  - all attractions to waterfronts offering much beyond being near the waterfront. 
 

Our new lakefront can’t be a beach   - we know that area doesn’t support a beach - it’s an urban downtown waterfront.  But Without more residential components, restaurants, entertainment and shopping options - I fear it will remain a largely underused place, except on game days.  
 

I’m pleased to see the latest plan now showing. Some residential and hotel component - I just wish the area could really be envisioned as a blank canvas for development that brings many people to the water’s edge throughout the year - but this plan is largely an aesthetic upgrade to the current waterfront - not a substantive reimagining of it unfortunately. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

^ you’re right. clearly the narrative or whatever being pushed by this plan is the least expensive make do option. 

 

the bridge extension is taking up a lot of space and residential looks like an afterthought here.

 

a few plans for the area sans the stadium would definitely give people food for thought.

 

its not like we all collectively havent often thought about removing the massive ‘mistake by the lake’ from that far too prime setting. its been constant background noise at least ever since muni was built. so yeah lets imagine alternatives too, why duck that option?

4 hours ago, GREGinPARMA said:

I am also very curious as to which development other UO members are more excited for?

Most excited for the riverfront development because, along with the development of Scranton Peninsula and the Flats, provides the opportunity to bridge the gap between Downtown and Ohio City with a new neighborhood that would be very unique to Cleveland. I'm also more bullish that the people leading the charge on this will be more successful in moving things forward.

 

The lakefront development will be an improvement but I have a lot of the same qualms that CleveFan mentions above. Also the fact this site has seen multiple visions over the decades without action, and needs cooperation from ODOT, leaves me a bit skeptical. 

   

12 minutes ago, Rustbelter said:

Most excited for the riverfront development because, along with the development of Scranton Peninsula and the Flats, provides the opportunity to bridge the gap between Downtown and Ohio City with a new neighborhood that would be very unique to Cleveland. I'm also more bullish that the people leading the charge on this will be more successful in moving things forward.

 

The lakefront development will be an improvement but I have a lot of the same qualms that CleveFan mentions above. Also the fact this site has seen multiple visions over the decades without action, and needs cooperation from ODOT, leaves me a bit skeptical. 

   

You practically put into words exactly what I was thinking about the riverfront development tying into Scranton and Ohio City. Especially with Irishtown Bend Park coming too. Thank you for finding the words I couldn't earlier lol

19 minutes ago, Rustbelter said:

FYI - there is an updated new survey posted on the City's website about the project for providing feedback.

https://clevelandnorthcoast.com/

 

 

 

done — its good to see that they are looking for feedback — great find thx 👍

 

i was postive, but also mentioned the land bridge takes up a lot of space, residential doesnt seem to be much of a consideration and also that there could be additional alternate plans without the stadium for people to compare and think about.

It is disappointing to me that the land-bridge is less land and more bridge than originally proposed. And while the lakefront still seems detached from downtown, I don't think it is only the slimmer bridge that creates that feeling. It is having the stadium sitting right there. It blocks the view between downtown and the lakeshore. Also, there is nothing like a Browns "village" that I thought would emerge as part of this plan. Like others have said, the stadium is not at all integrated into this plan. What would it take for the stadium to move to the area between Playhouse Square and Lakeside that some have proposed/envisioned? Is that a complete no-go?

 

There is something else I am wondering. Wasn't the main reason the Shoreway was supposed to be downgraded because the grade of the highway would interfere with the land-bridge? Is that still the case in this design?

I think this will be a very nice front lawn to our city.  This isn't what I would choose for an urban waterfront, but I'm very happy with this plan though because it seems like a lot of people want this type of development on the lake, so that's good.  I'm also glad because I prefer the type of urban waterfront that seems to be developing along the river.  High rises on one side, water on the other, and me in the middle sipping a beer!  We are very lucky in Cleveland to have 2 waterfronts, and I think it's great that each one is taking on a different identity.  I'm very glad that one waterfront vision will not be diluting the other. 

33 minutes ago, TMart said:

 

There is something else I am wondering. Wasn't the main reason the Shoreway was supposed to be downgraded because the grade of the highway would interfere with the land-bridge? Is that still the case in this design?

 

The city/NOACA/ODOT is going to be tapping federal dollars from a new USDOT program called "Reconnecting Communities" intended to remove highways that divide disadvantaged communities from opportunities, including recreational ones. That's why you're hearing a lot of commentary from the mayor and others about using this lakefront vision to "heal" the community and foster social justice. All of those goals will appear on the funding application for the federal money to downgrade the Shoreway. ODOT funding to promote economic development will be the non-federal share since its traditional funds used to move cars faster, safer and in greater numbers cannot be tapped here. This is Cleveland's first big transportation project that seeks to reverse the Norman Bel Geddes "Magic Motorways" theory of urban transportation that has dominated USA traffic engineering for 80+ years -- "there's no more reason for a car to slow down when passing through a city than a plane flying over it." (except for perhaps 5,000 years of proven city-building along trade/transportation routes)

Its a bit interesting that planners are getting this far along when the results of the Rt2 traffic study and Burke land use study haven't been released yet. Not sure if they would have access to preliminary findings to guide their plan, but in the off chance they find the best land use for Burke is to remove the airport and build a large lakefront park I would think we would want to rethink the land use at North Coast Harbor for more development while maintaining waterfront public access. 

 

I would also think you would want a firm commitment on where the Browns plan to have their stadium--Haslam partnering with Bobby George to locate the Browns' sports book in Harry Buffalo seemed to signal that he's not committed to the lakefront development. 

 

Just seems like there are still a couple key pieces that are still up in the air that could really change the context of this development. Though I'm sure the planners are privy to more information than I am. 

2 hours ago, CleveFan said:

I hate to sound in any way negative, but I just wish they would put forth a vision of the stadium lakefront parcel  without the stadium on it -  revealing what possibilities could then be developed. Letting us imagine that paradigm. 

Agreed! I had mentioned that a while back. It would also be nice to see a rendering of the Burke site without the airport.  IMO either the stadium or the airport needs to go away.

1 hour ago, Luke_S said:

I would also think you would want a firm commitment on where the Browns plan to have their stadium--Haslam partnering with Bobby George to locate the Browns' sports book in Harry Buffalo seemed to signal that he's not committed to the lakefront development. 

 

 

Trust in progress has to move in both directions.  Haslam has probably seen enough master lakefront plans come and go to not wait for his sports book to depend on it.