July 31, 2024Jul 31 If Deadman's Curve ever get fixed correctly, ODOT will need to obtain a portion of the Burke property to do so. So that would leave about 400 acres. 😀
July 31, 2024Jul 31 29 minutes ago, TBideon said: Say we did though. What on earth would Cleveland even do with those 450 acres? We can't even fill out the Flats to any significant degree, so I question how badly people really want to live, work, and recreate by water in this region. The Flats is a very different thing, with what seems to be a very different use case. The Flats is right downtown, not downtown-adjacent, and the difference in density between that and what could be done with the land at Burke is monumental. The Flats are clustered in a way where, while they get access to the river, they don't open onto the lake in nearly the same way. The uses are much more constrained. Either a park or development (or both) on Burke could allow a variety of different uses appealing to a broader swath of people. It could be easily more accessible from multiple directions across the region. If planned correctly, there could be room for business-oriented projects, residential uses, and open public spaces. The Flats doesn't cater to families, whereas this could. And not for nothing, while I admit that I don't go down there very often, but the Flats are always busy when I visit. So, I'm not sure the argument that we can't fill out the Flats is as valid now as it was a decade ago. Certainly there needs to be more work done. But any project that attracts more residents downtown and more diverse groups into the city is going to be a net benefit. Also, from my understanding, Burke's FAA-mandated role could be replaced by the Cuyahoga County Airport with a reasonable amount of accommodations. In 20 years, we can either be working our way towards a grand new lakefront or we can still be arguing over the same waste of space. The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, but the second best time is today. I am all in favor of the Bibb people trying to seriously get the ball rolling.
July 31, 2024Jul 31 2 hours ago, Cleburger said: They also had to fly a Boeing 727 (and many other aircraft) off the field from a taxiway. The owners of the aircraft should have all filed a class action suit against the city for putting their aircraft in jeopardy by stranding them there. It's also very much apples to oranges. Chicago had very little buildable or public space in the central business district. Cleveland has a sea of surface lots and vacant, weed-strewn land. Cleveland needs to maximize Burke while it can and focus on getting the rest of the waterfront land filled up (Scranton, Bedrock Tower City etc). Once everything is exhausted, we can turn our attention to Burke. I don't see that happening for 100+ years. Vielhaber just posted a video that it's been seven years since they blew up the Lakeshore power plant (I recall hearing it from Beulah Park). What's been done with that spot?
July 31, 2024Jul 31 49 minutes ago, TBideon said: Say we did though. What on earth would Cleveland even do with those 450 acres? We can't even fill out the Flats to any significant degree, so I question how badly people really want to live, work, and recreate by water in this region. Burke is well into where the shoreline breaks northeast, so like most points east of downtown (or even Edgewater Park) the wind blasts in off the lake during the winter months. That's why the high rises on the east side are so much less expensive. Anything there would be very seasonal.
July 31, 2024Jul 31 Counterpoint, Scranton Peninsula filled 80 acres pretty handily. I think developers prefer that blank slate approach vs trying to fit smaller projects in historical districts. And I could be wrong, but I thought the next phase of the flats was funded before Wolstein passed away and the project lost traction?
July 31, 2024Jul 31 45 minutes ago, Chris314 said: The Flats is a very different thing, with what seems to be a very different use case. The Flats is right downtown, not downtown-adjacent, and the difference in density between that and what could be done with the land at Burke is monumental. The Flats are clustered in a way where, while they get access to the river, they don't open onto the lake in nearly the same way. The uses are much more constrained. Either a park or development (or both) on Burke could allow a variety of different uses appealing to a broader swath of people. It could be easily more accessible from multiple directions across the region. If planned correctly, there could be room for business-oriented projects, residential uses, and open public spaces. The Flats doesn't cater to families, whereas this could. And not for nothing, while I admit that I don't go down there very often, but the Flats are always busy when I visit. So, I'm not sure the argument that we can't fill out the Flats is as valid now as it was a decade ago. Certainly there needs to be more work done. But any project that attracts more residents downtown and more diverse groups into the city is going to be a net benefit. Also, from my understanding, Burke's FAA-mandated role could be replaced by the Cuyahoga County Airport with a reasonable amount of accommodations. In 20 years, we can either be working our way towards a grand new lakefront or we can still be arguing over the same waste of space. The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, but the second best time is today. I am all in favor of the Bibb people trying to seriously get the ball rolling. I think with the city's limited resources, plans should be made that are realistic, whether now, 20 years, 40, etc. North Collinwood and Euclid aren't exactly thriving despite their lakefront locations. You'd think they'd be the most desired lands in the region, but clearly they have varying struggles, and that's with existing infrastructure and neighborhood amenities. If they can't take advantage of the lake, I'm not understanding why we presume a Burke wonderland would. I just don't see the demand and certainly not the financing.
July 31, 2024Jul 31 4 hours ago, Cleburger said: They also had to fly a Boeing 727 (and many other aircraft) off the field from a taxiway. The owners of the aircraft should have all filed a class action suit against the city for putting their aircraft in jeopardy by stranding them there. It's also very much apples to oranges. Chicago had very little buildable or public space in the central business district. Cleveland has a sea of surface lots and vacant, weed-strewn land. Cleveland needs to maximize Burke while it can and focus on getting the rest of the waterfront land filled up (Scranton, Bedrock Tower City etc). Once everything is exhausted, we can turn our attention to Burke. I don't see that happening for 100+ years. For years, Chicago also paid down the federal capital improvement debt it had incurred for Meigs so that when "sudden" closure day happened, there would be no debt left on the airport. Cleveland has tens of millions (for some reason $48 million sticks in my head) of federal debt on Burke. In reality, Chicago planned Meigs' sudden closure for many years. 3 hours ago, TBideon said: I'd argue the city would benefit a great deal more from a proper Burke park/complex than Gordon. I-90 and CSX just butchered the poor park, and it's so far away from downtown and inaccessible without a car that it would only benefit the locals and boaters a little, not region. That $8 million bandaid is a pittance. Mind you, I don't think Burke is going anywhere in our lifetimes, and even if it miraculously did, it isn't like funding and tenants would line up to any degree unless we start getting enormous international capital from Saudis, Russians, Chinese, etc. Billions. Maybe tens of billions. The railroad line predates Gordon Park. The park resulted from when industrialist William J. Gordon died in 1892, he donated the land to the city. The Cleveland, Painesville & Ashtabula Railroad was built in 1851. Ironically, if you want to find a descendent of Gordon, ask them to sue to the city to get the land back from the highway. Gordon donated the land to the city under the condition that it forever remain a free, public park. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
July 31, 2024Jul 31 2 hours ago, LibertyBlvd said: If Deadman's Curve ever get fixed correctly, ODOT will need to obtain a portion of the Burke property to do so. So that would leave about 400 acres. 😀 I don't see Deadman's Curve ever getting eased. It will cost $500 million to do it. 2 hours ago, E Rocc said: Vielhaber just posted a video that it's been seven years since they blew up the Lakeshore power plant (I recall hearing it from Beulah Park). What's been done with that spot? It's finally in the hands of a motivated owner. Costly clean up and leveling of the land required: https://neo-trans.blog/2024/01/24/lakefront-megasite-for-housing-or-distribution-hub/ 1 hour ago, Henke said: Counterpoint, Scranton Peninsula filled 80 acres pretty handily. I think developers prefer that blank slate approach vs trying to fit smaller projects in historical districts. And I could be wrong, but I thought the next phase of the flats was funded before Wolstein passed away and the project lost traction? Scranton Peninsula is 80 acres but only 25 acres was part of the Thunderbird development. Most of the rest is locked away in the abyss of Scranton Averill Co. and isn't going to be developed anytime soon. The next phase of the Flats lost traction only temporarily. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
July 31, 2024Jul 31 Scranton Peninsula could be developed without a transfer of land, if the owners were willing to just do a land lease which is more common in other larger, denser cities. I would hope that at least one developer has approached them to see if they’d be interested in leasing the land for development. I’m with those who don’t see the need to develop the airport land while we have not just areas of downtown, but neighborhoods which have lost much of their urbanity in the inner city. There are fields now along St. Clair, Superior, Kinsman, and other main drags. Developing Burke won’t bring those areas back.
July 31, 2024Jul 31 1 hour ago, TBideon said: I think with the city's limited resources, plans should be made that are realistic, whether now, 20 years, 40, etc. North Collinwood and Euclid aren't exactly thriving despite their lakefront locations. You'd think they'd be the most desired lands in the region, but clearly they have varying struggles, and that's with existing infrastructure and neighborhood amenities. If they can't take advantage of the lake, I'm not understanding why we presume a Burke wonderland would. I just don't see the demand and certainly not the financing. Let's be honest. A lakefront property on the edge of a booming Downtown in terms of residential growth is a lot more desirable than North Collinwood or Euclid to investors. Also in the past, Cleveland as a whole was stagnant so that plays a role in a lack of development on that land.
July 31, 2024Jul 31 31 minutes ago, KJP said: I don't see Deadman's Curve ever getting eased. It will cost $500 million to do it. ODOT TRAC 2024-2027 shows $15mil worth of preliminary engineering on the I-90/SR-2 interchange (Deadman's Curve) over two years 2025-2026 (TIER III, page 4), the first step in the process of reconstruction: https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/wps/portal/gov/odot/programs/trac/construction-program-lists/a-final-major-project-list-2024-2027 I'd post a photo of the proposed interchange but I've met my attachment quota?! (Mods?!) Edited July 31, 2024Jul 31 by Geowizical
July 31, 2024Jul 31 13 minutes ago, Oldmanladyluck said: Scranton Peninsula could be developed without a transfer of land, if the owners were willing to just do a land lease which is more common in other larger, denser cities. I would hope that at least one developer has approached them to see if they’d be interested in leasing the land for development. I’m with those who don’t see the need to develop the airport land while we have not just areas of downtown, but neighborhoods which have lost much of their urbanity in the inner city. There are fields now along St. Clair, Superior, Kinsman, and other main drags. Developing Burke won’t bring those areas back. No, but developing Burke allows for the creation of an "exclusive" community within the city of Cleveland albeit with walls and gates, much like the Venetian Islands in Miami or virtually every luxury building in the upscale Aclimação neighborhood of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Sadly, it accommodates the worst fears in wealthy people but gets their taxbase moved into the urban core where they otherwise would never live. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
July 31, 2024Jul 31 7 minutes ago, Geowizical said: ODOT TRAC 2024-2027 shows $15mil worth of preliminary engineering on the I-90/SR-2 interchange (Deadman's Curve) over two years 2025-2026 (TIER III, page 4), the first step in the process of reconstruction: https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/wps/portal/gov/odot/programs/trac/construction-program-lists/a-final-major-project-list-2024-2027 I'd post a photo of the proposed interchange but I've met my attachment quota?! (Mods?!) Tier III means it's not likely to be funded. Tier II means it's on standby. Tier I means a check is about to be cut. Here's an old plan from 2007 -- to show that big, federally funded highway projects can take a long time too.... "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
July 31, 2024Jul 31 9 minutes ago, KJP said: No, but developing Burke allows for the creation of an "exclusive" community within the city of Cleveland albeit with walls and gates, much like the Venetian Islands in Miami or virtually every luxury building in the upscale Aclimação neighborhood of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Sadly, it accommodates the worst fears in wealthy people but gets their taxbase moved into the urban core where they otherwise would never live. Sounds like a Bratenahl 2.0. Nothing wrong with a wealthy enclave, but really, how would the city benefit and recoup the billions of investment and hours required for planning and implementation.
July 31, 2024Jul 31 15 minutes ago, KJP said: Tier III means it's not likely to be funded. Tier II means it's on standby. Tier I means a check is about to be cut. Here's an old plan from 2007 -- to show that big, federally funded highway projects can take a long time too.... Well, has there been any indication from ODOT saying they won't complete the Innerbelt plan? They're about to start Contract Group 3A in 2026 with the $160mil reconstruction of the I-77/I-90 interchange from E9th to Carnegie (TIER I). I see no reason why future phases don't get moved up in tiers further down the line... Also, 2015 is the most up-to-date version of the plan: https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/projects/mega-projects/mega-projects/innerbelt Edited July 31, 2024Jul 31 by Geowizical
July 31, 2024Jul 31 46 minutes ago, MyPhoneDead said: Let's be honest. A lakefront property on the edge of a booming Downtown in terms of residential growth is a lot more desirable than North Collinwood or Euclid to investors. Also in the past, Cleveland as a whole was stagnant so that plays a role in a lack of development on that land. I don't think investors seem particularly interested in developing any of these areas, whether it's a clean slate like Burke or existing lands in North Collinwood and Euclid. The latter at least have the potential for organic growth and not at whatever ungodly cost Burke would require. These hedge funds or international investors or Blackrocks just don't seem to have that kind of interest in the region. And locals like Gilbert, Stark, Jimmy/Dee, the Ratners, etc, seem to not give a s-hit about Cleveland these days, so we can't rely on them. Which is why I feel the whole topic is a bit moot. Entertaining but more fantasy than anything. Edited July 31, 2024Jul 31 by TBideon
July 31, 2024Jul 31 5 hours ago, Mendo said: Gordon Park is barely a mile east of Burke and there are plans to expand and update it. If we have to spend political capital somewhere I'd rather it go to realigning the Shoreway to make Gordon Park a better space than shutting Burke for more greenspace. Someone feel free to correct me, but the CHEERS funding (creating the park off of 55th/72nd marinas out into the lake) is a compromise to moving 90. The only motivating factor for ODOT to move 90 in this stretch was the lake washing up on 90, the CHEERS plan will harden the shoreline and prevent that.
July 31, 2024Jul 31 Using economic ROE as the only criteria (l realize that's not the ONLY measurement when building something) it seems to me that the best use of Burke is for office, retail and residentual. Followed by its continuation as an airport and finally as a park. The first and best choice will probably not get done in my lifetime. The second choice already exists so nothing needs to be done. That leaves the third choice which l think is doable because it's affordable. Close the airport and turn it into something like Stanley Park in Vancouver. Not much more than trails and trees. We could certainly afford that. Just imagine a real wilderness squeezed in between the lake and downtown. Pretty cool AND doable.
July 31, 2024Jul 31 26 minutes ago, GISguy said: Someone feel free to correct me, but the CHEERS funding (creating the park off of 55th/72nd marinas out into the lake) is a compromise to moving 90. The only motivating factor for ODOT to move 90 in this stretch was the lake washing up on 90, the CHEERS plan will harden the shoreline and prevent that. I remember there was a line in one of the official CHEERS documents saying something along the lines of, nothing in this plan conflicts with alternative plans to move 90 and reconnect Gordon Park. But functionally, you're absolutely right, CHEERS is the alternative to moving 90. Both of these plans in combination would make a truly fantastic park though, larger than Edgewater. Probably won't happen, but would be cool, and technically still could.
July 31, 2024Jul 31 Does Cleveland even have any money to do anything if the stadium moves? This whole conversation started anew because of Jimmy the billionaire, right? But now that he wants to spend his money elsewhere, I am unclear on how anything gets done. Is there enough money with the TIF to pay for the riverfront and a TBD lakefront project? And over what time frame?
July 31, 2024Jul 31 44 minutes ago, coneflower said: Does Cleveland even have any money to do anything if the stadium moves? This whole conversation started anew because of Jimmy the billionaire, right? But now that he wants to spend his money elsewhere, I am unclear on how anything gets done. Is there enough money with the TIF to pay for the riverfront and a TBD lakefront project? And over what time frame? Almost positive the Burke viability study was initiated before Jimmy's stadiumapalooza took off.
July 31, 2024Jul 31 7 hours ago, TBideon said: Really, realistically, unfortunately, lakefront development just isn't happening at Burke. This whole discussion is fun, but we might as well be arguing if the earth is flat. Agreed, this is the last of Cleveland's worries. Maybe it's something to talk about in 2075 when the next Brown's stadium gets built. Downtown and the riverfront are enough to concentrate on for the foreseeable future. 3 hours ago, KJP said: No, but developing Burke allows for the creation of an "exclusive" community within the city of Cleveland albeit with walls and gates, much like the Venetian Islands in Miami or virtually every luxury building in the upscale Aclimação neighborhood of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Sadly, it accommodates the worst fears in wealthy people but gets their taxbase moved into the urban core where they otherwise would never live. Given the site logistics of it being cut off from the rest of the city this would be the obvious type of development to go there, and there's nothing wrong with that. Cities that are successful have areas like this.
July 31, 2024Jul 31 1 hour ago, GISguy said: Almost positive the Burke viability study was initiated before Jimmy's stadiumapalooza took off. I could be wrong but I thought Haslam proposed stadium redevelopment before Jackson left office. Then Bibb started lakefront planning and airport research when he got in. Either way, how does anything happen without those billionaire bucks?
August 1, 2024Aug 1 12 hours ago, Ethan said: This is a great analysis, but there's one problem with it, Chicago didn't tear up the runway to develop it. That land was turned into a park. I actually fully agree with your argument if the assumption is that Burke would be primarily used for development. We have too much vacant land to bother developing Burke. What we don't have, and probably will never see another opportunity for again is a Metroparks Reservation sized park in a walk/bike able distance from downtown. Would it be perfect, no, but to me, that's the real argument for closing Burke. Development can happen anywhere, and infill should be prioritized anyway. We won't find another opportunity for a lakefront destination park. This could also be achieved and co-exist with Burke by building a greenway along the water at Burke connecting the E9th area with Gordon Park. It would certainly be a unique place to jog and bike with aircraft landing on one side and the water on the other.
August 1, 2024Aug 1 15 hours ago, TBideon said: Sounds like a Bratenahl 2.0. Nothing wrong with a wealthy enclave, but really, how would the city benefit and recoup the billions of investment and hours required for planning and implementation. If there's a new tax revenue stream resulting from a development, then the city has the ability to capture those future revenues via a TIF to service a bond or some other debt to build streets, sewers and other infrastructure for it. And yes, there are some major national and international investors interested in Cleveland. Not all of them crave the limelight. In fact I just stumbled into one the other day and got them to comment publicly on their purchase of the City Club Apartments. There are others. 15 hours ago, Geowizical said: Well, has there been any indication from ODOT saying they won't complete the Innerbelt plan? They're about to start Contract Group 3A in 2026 with the $160mil reconstruction of the I-77/I-90 interchange from E9th to Carnegie (TIER I). I see no reason why future phases don't get moved up in tiers further down the line... Also, 2015 is the most up-to-date version of the plan: https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/projects/mega-projects/mega-projects/innerbelt If they had unlimited money, yes. Problem is, easing Dead Man's Curve doesn't rank very highly due to its low impact from investment. The number of accidents it sees is less than those resulting from the closely spaced on/off ramps in the Inner Belt's trench. 13 hours ago, coneflower said: Does Cleveland even have any money to do anything if the stadium moves? This whole conversation started anew because of Jimmy the billionaire, right? But now that he wants to spend his money elsewhere, I am unclear on how anything gets done. Is there enough money with the TIF to pay for the riverfront and a TBD lakefront project? And over what time frame? From my July 26 Riverfront article: The Shore-to-Core-to-Shore TIF District was expected to generate at least $3.3 billion over the next four decades. The Bedrock Project TIF would subtract from that an amount capped at $400 million. It will cost $75 million more, so Bedrock is responsible for finding it. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
August 1, 2024Aug 1 19 hours ago, MyPhoneDead said: Let's be honest. A lakefront property on the edge of a booming Downtown in terms of residential growth is a lot more desirable than North Collinwood or Euclid to investors. Also in the past, Cleveland as a whole was stagnant so that plays a role in a lack of development on that land. North Collinwood and Euclid also do not need to attract national developers/investors. The downtown core, however, is a symbol of the health of the city. That's what's going to be shown on TV whenever something of national interest happens in Cleveland. We need to fill the downtown parking craters before we spend a lot of money to close Burke so that it can be redeveloped into a luxury gated community and public park (which seems like the most likely outcome).
August 1, 2024Aug 1 It's too bad it sounds like there's no way to fast track the closure of Burke, because that sounds like the best compromise for the Haslems. Give them a large chunk and tax it, turn the other half either into the gated community or a metro park (or even a lakefront golf course would still be better than what it is now), and reserve a lakefront walking/bike trail all the way between downtown and Gordon Park / the future CHEERS site. Opens up the old stadium site for a ton of downtown expansion via the landbridge. Everyone wins. Edited August 1, 2024Aug 1 by daybreaker
August 1, 2024Aug 1 19 hours ago, KJP said: Here's an old plan from 2007 -- to show that big, federally funded highway projects can take a long time too.... Hasn’t changed much Edited August 1, 2024Aug 1 by Enginerd
August 1, 2024Aug 1 6 hours ago, Foraker said: North Collinwood and Euclid also do not need to attract national developers/investors. The downtown core, however, is a symbol of the health of the city. That's what's going to be shown on TV whenever something of national interest happens in Cleveland. We need to fill the downtown parking craters before we spend a lot of money to close Burke so that it can be redeveloped into a luxury gated community and public park (which seems like the most likely outcome). i’m not sure burke is good for immediate housing without added landfill and then time for it to settle. i always heard it was rather spongey, not sure though.
August 3, 2024Aug 3 On 8/1/2024 at 5:32 PM, mrnyc said: i’m not sure burke is good for immediate housing without added landfill and then time for it to settle. i always heard it was rather spongey, not sure though. It's not only spongy, but when holes are dug brown sludge oozes up from the earth below.
August 3, 2024Aug 3 8 minutes ago, Cleburger said: It's not only spongy, but when holes are dug brown sludge oozes up from the earth below. Is there a study that confirms this or any documentation? I’ve always heard this was the case, but I’m curious to see anything official.
August 4, 2024Aug 4 Latest plans for downtown Cleveland lakefront show city could revamp Shoreway with or without Browns Stadium Steven Litt- CPD - Aug. 4, 2024 "Fresh details, shared before Monday’s event with cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer, show how the Shoreway could be scaled down from eight to four lanes and from 50 mph to 35 mph without causing traffic chaos on the lakefront or downtown streets. ... Later this month, the city and NCWDC plan to issue a request for qualifications from engineering firms to continue to work toward bid-ready documents. Under a best case scenario, if the federal government awards the $268 million grant this fall, construction could start before the end of 2026, Skinner said."
August 4, 2024Aug 4 On 7/31/2024 at 2:33 PM, KJP said: I don't see Deadman's Curve ever getting eased. It will cost $500 million to do it. It's finally in the hands of a motivated owner. Costly clean up and leveling of the land required: https://neo-trans.blog/2024/01/24/lakefront-megasite-for-housing-or-distribution-hub/ Scranton Peninsula is 80 acres but only 25 acres was part of the Thunderbird development. Most of the rest is locked away in the abyss of Scranton Averill Co. and isn't going to be developed anytime soon. The next phase of the Flats lost traction only temporarily. ODOT can always find more money for highways….
August 4, 2024Aug 4 1 hour ago, NorthShore647 said: Latest plans for downtown Cleveland lakefront show city could revamp Shoreway with or without Browns Stadium Steven Litt- CPD - Aug. 4, 2024 "Fresh details, shared before Monday’s event with cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer, show how the Shoreway could be scaled down from eight to four lanes and from 50 mph to 35 mph without causing traffic chaos on the lakefront or downtown streets. ... Later this month, the city and NCWDC plan to issue a request for qualifications from engineering firms to continue to work toward bid-ready documents. Under a best case scenario, if the federal government awards the $268 million grant this fall, construction could start before the end of 2026, Skinner said." Still doing the whole 13 foot lanes thing, eh?
August 4, 2024Aug 4 Looks largely unchanged from the earlier plans. Overall it'll be a huge improvement over what's there now, but still a missed opportunity. Caters to traffic, too much asphalt, not enough development opportunities. Look at one of the traffic alternatives at Lakeside and W.6th. This shouldn't even be a consideration.
August 4, 2024Aug 4 this lakeside/w6/summit thing is crazy. just end the highway at w3, have lakeside be a T intersection at w6
August 4, 2024Aug 4 This works better without the stadium and more housing, imho. Couldn’t they adopt the DC approach and allow market rate with a certain percentage of affordable house required to ensure it is not just an exclusive enclave?
August 4, 2024Aug 4 There isn’t much land to the land bridge. That’s my beef. The most important part of the plan is the most poorly designed.
August 4, 2024Aug 4 2 hours ago, marty15 said: There isn’t much land to the land bridge. That’s my beef. The most important part of the plan is the most poorly designed. It's just a pedestrian bridge at this point... It should maintain the width of mall C. Bending over backwards to keep letting natural light into the convention center isn't worth it, and if we must do, the Haslam's proposal did it much better. If we must skip to save money, the the focal point of the whole project seems like the wrong place to do so. 5 hours ago, Mendo said: Looks largely unchanged from the earlier plans. Overall it'll be a huge improvement over what's there now, but still a missed opportunity. Caters to traffic, too much asphalt, not enough development opportunities. Look at one of the traffic alternatives at Lakeside and W.6th. This shouldn't even be a consideration. They've gone back and forth on this secondary bridge many times. I'll admit to not having strong feelings either way. If adding this bridge makes the project more politically feasible then great! I don't think adding this will make the pedestrian experience any worse, so to me it's just a money question. As long as adding it isn't preventing a wider land bridge I'm not opposed. Edit: inability to properly access the article left me confused, this option is infinitely worse than the other, doesn't seem to be any reason to go with this ignore the above. -- Has any other publisher written about this yet? Cleveland.com is giving me problems. Edited August 4, 2024Aug 4 by Ethan Confusion
August 4, 2024Aug 4 1 hour ago, marty15 said: There isn’t much land to the land bridge. That’s my beef. The most important part of the plan is the most poorly designed. Right, it has become more so a pedestrian bridge versus an extension of the mall.
August 4, 2024Aug 4 I agree that the land bridge has turned out to be a pedestrian path. I also wonder why there are no plans showing the option without The Browns Stadium on the lakefront. Shouldn't this have been developed as a possible alternative for us to see how a plan might change.?
August 5, 2024Aug 5 Light on details, but Bibb continues to work the decision makers and hopefully we continue to see the benefit of those meetings. Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb talks lakefront with Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg by Nick Castele August 5, 2024 [Mayor Justin Bibb and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg] spoke June 24, when the secretary was visiting Northeast Ohio, the mayor’s office said. Details on the talks are minimal. City Hall would only say that Bibb updated Buttigieg about “lakefront vision and plans.” ... Cleveland has plenty of lakefront matters of interest to the U.S. Department of Transportation. The city is pursuing a federal grant for the long-sought land bridge connecting downtown to the lake. Then there’s the possibility of expanded Amtrak service through Ohio. Perhaps the biggest Lake Erie fish of them all is the potential closure of Burke Lakefront Airport. Cleveland officials have said they are nearing a decision on the airport’s fate. If the city does move to close the airport, it would need the feds’ blessing. Bibb met in May with an official from the Federal Aviation Administration, an agency within the Transportation Department. https://signalcleveland.org/cleveland-mayor-justin-bibb-talks-lakefront-with-transportation-secretary-pete-buttigieg/ Edited August 5, 2024Aug 5 by Luke_S
August 5, 2024Aug 5 On 7/31/2024 at 12:54 PM, TBideon said: North Collinwood and Euclid aren't exactly thriving despite their lakefront locations. You'd think they'd be the most desired lands in the region, but clearly they have varying struggles, and that's with existing infrastructure and neighborhood amenities. I live in North Collinwood within sight of the Lake. Kelly lives in a Euclid high rise with an absolutely incredible lake view. The pic was Saturday afternoon, 15X magnification, if my math is correct 11 miles out: Both spots get brutally cold and windy 5-6 months out of the year. The shape of the shore gives us sunsets that look like California, but much colder temperatures than the west shore.
August 5, 2024Aug 5 18 hours ago, coneflower said: This works better without the stadium and more housing, imho. Couldn’t they adopt the DC approach and allow market rate with a certain percentage of affordable house required to ensure it is not just an exclusive enclave? If you want people to actively move down there I wouldn't worry so much about an "exclusive enclave".
August 5, 2024Aug 5 1 hour ago, E Rocc said: I live in North Collinwood within sight of the Lake. Kelly lives in a Euclid high rise with an absolutely incredible lake view. The pic was Saturday afternoon, 15X magnification, if my math is correct 11 miles out: Both spots get brutally cold and windy 5-6 months out of the year. The shape of the shore gives us sunsets that look like California, but much colder temperatures than the west shore. That is a fair point. I'm not an engineer, but it seems like there has to be a way to plan development and design buildings that mitigate some of that wind. The city's plan doesn't really seem to contemplate the wind, which would prevent it from being an all-season destination.
August 5, 2024Aug 5 1 hour ago, Luke_S said: Light on details, but Bibb continues to work the decision makers and hopefully we continue to see the benefit of those meetings. Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb talks lakefront with Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg by Nick Castele August 5, 2024 [Mayor Justin Bibb and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg] spoke June 24, when the secretary was visiting Northeast Ohio, the mayor’s office said. Details on the talks are minimal. City Hall would only say that Bibb updated Buttigieg about “lakefront vision and plans.” ... Cleveland has plenty of lakefront matters of interest to the U.S. Department of Transportation. The city is pursuing a federal grant for the long-sought land bridge connecting downtown to the lake. Then there’s the possibility of expanded Amtrak service through Ohio. Perhaps the biggest Lake Erie fish of them all is the potential closure of Burke Lakefront Airport. Cleveland officials have said they are nearing a decision on the airport’s fate. If the city does move to close the airport, it would need the feds’ blessing. Bibb met in May with an official from the Federal Aviation Administration, an agency within the Transportation Department. https://signalcleveland.org/cleveland-mayor-justin-bibb-talks-lakefront-with-transportation-secretary-pete-buttigieg/ I still feel like there has to be some value to having air freight capabilities immediately adjacent to a container port, a main cross country interstate, and a rail line. Especially at the furthest inland container port on the lakes.
August 5, 2024Aug 5 41 minutes ago, E Rocc said: I still feel like there has to be some value to having air freight capabilities immediately adjacent to a container port, a main cross country interstate, and a rail line. Especially at the furthest inland container port on the lakes. Is Burke used for air freight?
August 5, 2024Aug 5 17 minutes ago, Luke_S said: Is Burke used for air freight? Currently no--only for small scale medical transport (organs, live tissue etc)
August 5, 2024Aug 5 1 hour ago, E Rocc said: I still feel like there has to be some value to having air freight capabilities immediately adjacent to a container port, a main cross country interstate, and a rail line. Especially at the furthest inland container port on the lakes. I am hesitant to assume this kind of potential would have been included in the cost-benefit analysis for closing Burke. But who the hell knows at this point. I have a suspicion these studies are simply a political vehicle to justify a decision that was already made.
August 5, 2024Aug 5 2 hours ago, Luke_S said: Is Burke used for air freight? Can it be? Hell, the C5 can land there. Edited August 5, 2024Aug 5 by E Rocc
Create an account or sign in to comment