I assume the design of the land bridge will depend on whether or not the stadium remains.  I'm not sure the leg on the southeast end of the land bridge is really necessary.

apologies if this was posted already, but Bibb mentioned what could replace the stadium: music venue, a museum, and have asked NASA to look into the site  

 

also made it sound as though basketball and pickleball courts could  pop up starting this spring  

Edited January 11Jan 11 by BoomerangCleRes

NASA? Well at least that sounds potentially interesting. Music venue? We got those but perhaps something unique and connected to the Rock Hall works?

 

Honestly we should replace the stadium with not one thing but dozens if not hundreds of smaller sized things. That is just a huge amount of space. 

2 hours ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

apologies if this was posted already, but Bibb mentioned what could replace the stadium: music venue, a museum, and have asked NASA to look into the site  

 

also made it sound as though basketball and pickleball courts could  pop up starting this spring  

Yea highly doubt NASA moves from *checks notes* Brookpark

3 minutes ago, AsDustinFoxWouldSay said:

Yea highly doubt NASA moves from *checks notes* Brookpark

The NASA Glenn Visitor Center is currently located at Great Lakes Science Center, so presumably this would be an expansion of that into an independent visitor-facing facility vs moving their professional facilities. 

1 hour ago, surfohio said:

Music venue? We got those but perhaps something unique and connected to the Rock Hall works?

I believe the Rock Hall expansion will include a music venue.

I am throwing my vote for a legitimate aquarium. Would work great with the Science Center and being on the lake.

Just now, Mogradal said:

I am throwing my vote for a legitimate aquarium. Would work great with the Science Center and being on the lake.

If they're going to do this, they should build right on the harbor front, and include a glass window in the basement that looks directly underwater into the harbor.   It's dredged to about 20 feet along those retaining walls.   Might be very fascinating if they can actually lure some local aquatic life with bait in the water.   

1 hour ago, surfohio said:

Honestly we should replace the stadium with not one thing but dozens if not hundreds of smaller sized things. That is just a huge amount of space. 

Agreed.  Many of the comments on this topic have seemed to focus on singular ideas that would be attractions - aquarium, Ferris wheel etc.  But please let there be residential. What an opportunity to create a whole new beautiful neighborhood on the lakefront.  
The views looking either north or south would be stunning. 
 

Look how the new apartments on Scranton Peninsula are changing the aesthetic of the city - and many said that could never happen. Imagine an actual neighborhood on this parcel.  And yes, there’s room for different kinds of uses including recreational. 
 

Hope the city’s leaders think big because everything starts with a vision. 

11 minutes ago, Mogradal said:

I am throwing my vote for a legitimate aquarium. Would work great with the Science Center and being on the lake.

 

I have a soft-spot for the current aquarium because my Grandpa worked on the furnaces in the old power plant there, and I do think they did a nice job working the displays into the existing space--utilizing the smoke stacks, ect--but a bigger aquarium would definitely be nice. Not sure if Cleveland Metroparks would be interested in owning and operating but they would be a logical partner. 

Several years ago, after Trolleyview USA closed, they were looking for a location downtown to display the trolley cars which were being temporarily stored in a warehouse.  I thought the powerhouse would have been a good place, but we got an aquarium instead. 

On the Main Ave. Bridge’s condition discussed on the last page:  The bridge deck was essentially replaced and other elements refurbished in the late 1990s.  I remember it being closed a couple of years for this job. So, some parts of it are  newer than its age of record. 

14 hours ago, Quilliam said:

On the Main Ave. Bridge’s condition discussed on the last page:  The bridge deck was essentially replaced and other elements refurbished in the late 1990s.  I remember it being closed a couple of years for this job. So, some parts of it are  newer than its age of record. 

It's the substructure that is of concern.

On 1/11/2025 at 2:51 PM, Cleburger said:

If they're going to do this, they should build right on the harbor front, and include a glass window in the basement that looks directly underwater into the harbor.   It's dredged to about 20 feet along those retaining walls.   Might be very fascinating if they can actually lure some local aquatic life with bait in the water.   

Great idea and great way to finally catch and monetize Bessie before Canada's Ontarians do:

https://greatlakes.guide/ideas/meet-bessie-the-loch-ness-monsters-canadian-cousin-livin

 

12 hours ago, ColDayMan said:

New I-75 cap renderings show park spaces bridging downtown

The renderings, designed based on feedback from the project’s community meetings last year, depict three parks on "overbuilds" along I-75. Designs show a mix of open green space with grass and trees, outdoor gathering and dining space as well as play areas. The three caps under consideration would be located in the heart of downtown Detroit and help connect venues north of the freeway to the southern side — namely Little Caesars Arena, Comerica Park and Ford Field, as well as the under-construction University of Michigan Center for Innovation.

Cap locations are being considered for Woodward Avenue, John R and Brush streets, as well as at Grand River Avenue. Each of three proposed caps would be 600-800 feet long.

AECOM, a Texas-headquartered infrastructure consulting firm, was hired by the DDP for the initial feasibility study.

 

More below:

https://www.crainsdetroit.com/transportation/i-75-cap-renderings-show-new-park-space-downtown

 

 

 

 

I know there are a lot more engineering difficulties for Cleveland's land bridge due to level changes, etc, but this highway cap is along the lines of what I'd like to see in Cleveland over the tracks and new boulevard. My concern with the proposed land bridge design has always been that it simply won't be wide to create the illusion that the road is tunneling underground, and the land bridge isn't a bridge at all, but a park breaking though the city. 

 

 

Personally, I don't think the land bridge as currently designed is wide enough to create that illusion. 

 

If the Browns really are moving, I'd like to see us reconsider the land bridge design to something more akin to the original proposal, at least as far as land bridge width. The most logical, and I would argue best, design for the land bridge is to continue the mall straight up until the new lakefront area proposed in the plan. (We also need a good connection to the Rock Hall, which wasn't present in the original Haslam plan). 

 

 

I still don't like the cutouts for the Convention center though. Those should go. There's a reason most downtown convention centers don't have natural light. It isn't worth all the rest of the sacrifices to city amenities. Honestly, I'd be in favor of eliminating the bump up entrance on Mall B as well, but that's another discussion. 

 

Tldr: if the stadium is going, let's use the opportunity to make some lemonade and widen the Land bridge. 

^ There are old renderings out there somewhere for the initial proposal for the Convention Center bridging that gap and it does look awesome.  

3 minutes ago, surfohio said:

^ There are old renderings out there somewhere for the initial proposal for the Convention Center bridging that gap and it does look awesome.  

I'm not sure if I've seen those, but it would be an interesting win-win compromise. The convention center gets bigger, and could line the sides of the land bridge with plenty of windows, bringing in plenty of natural light. It also brings it closer to the new multimodal transit hub, and the cultural centers on the lake. The land bridge gets to be complete without stupid gaps, everyone wins. 

 

Perhaps the convention center could also help support some of the cost? Being potentially 25% larger has to be of value to it, and should theoretically help them bring in more money. 

 

My only real question is if there's the vertical space for it? And if the added construction cost is worth it, but it makes sense without actually running the numbers. 

1 hour ago, Ethan said:

I know there are a lot more engineering difficulties for Cleveland's land bridge due to level changes, etc, but this highway cap is along the lines of what I'd like to see in Cleveland over the tracks and new boulevard. My concern with the proposed land bridge design has always been that it simply won't be wide to create the illusion that the road is tunneling underground, and the land bridge isn't a bridge at all, but a park breaking though the city. 

 

 

Personally, I don't think the land bridge as currently designed is wide enough to create that illusion. 

 

If the Browns really are moving, I'd like to see us reconsider the land bridge design to something more akin to the original proposal, at least as far as land bridge width. The most logical, and I would argue best, design for the land bridge is to continue the mall straight up until the new lakefront area proposed in the plan. (We also need a good connection to the Rock Hall, which wasn't present in the original Haslam plan). 

 

 

I still don't like the cutouts for the Convention center though. Those should go. There's a reason most downtown convention centers don't have natural light. It isn't worth all the rest of the sacrifices to city amenities. Honestly, I'd be in favor of eliminating the bump up entrance on Mall B as well, but that's another discussion. 

 

Tldr: if the stadium is going, let's use the opportunity to make some lemonade and widen the Land bridge. 

 

Yeah I completely agree. I feel like making it a bridge rather than a cap has a big impact on people's perception. An extension of the park is a place in itself; a really long bridge just frames it as the means to get to a place—and a pretty inefficient one at that. The waterfront line already takes people from public square to the lakefront, with the added benefit of protection from the elements.

Here's a rough mock up of what I'd like to see, pink is land for development. Green is park land. 

 

 

Ideally the land bridge would slope or step down into the new development area. It shouldn't feel like it's elevated above it. Some small developments over the tracks at the sides of the land bridge would be cool way to really sell the illusion. 

This was one of the first concepts submitted to the state in search of funding. Circa 2021

I like the larger bridge, but would also like to see it seamlessly Incorporated into the proposed transportation center below it.  An entrance directly into the center from the bridge would be ideal.

20 hours ago, Enginerd said:

This was one of the first concepts submitted to the state in search of funding. Circa 2021

While I like the amount of grass, transitioning well from the mall and covered walkways of the original, as I look at it more I don't like how it only serves to transport people to the Science Center and Rock Hall. The newer version while slimmer connects to the area of the future developments, has a walkway that connects to the Science Center and Rock Hall and is still close to Voinovich park. So overall I feel it is the better bridge to serve the ENTIRE lakefront development.

Just my opinion, but I think it would be a big mistake to blow the budget on a hugely wide bridge instead of foundation work/connections/stairs/elevators, etc. that could connect a smaller bridge to buildings added to the edge over time. If you want to hide the view of the railroad tracks, do it with walls, not $100M of extra bridge width. The malls are already depressingly empty and barren for much of the year. I don't see the appeal of extending what I'd view as a failed or compromised scheme.  I've always hated the "land bridge" concept. Much better to think of this project as a pedestrian route or progression, focusing on view points, interim things of interest, connections, quality materials, etc., to guide people on an interesting path forward. Should be designed at ground level, not from the helicopter views we keep seeing that gloss over how it will actually be experienced in real life or viewed from the Mall or lakefront.

Back in 2021, I attended the NFL draft in CLE on a Saturday. I live in Columbus, but try to get to downtown CLE once or twice a year. I had my wife drop me off that Saturday at the Green Rd rapid station while she continued on to visit family in Ashtabula. There were some others on the rapid heading to the draft as well, but not many. When we got to Tower City, I was amazed how desolate the place was. It was hard to believe thousands were in town for the draft. I got outside and made my way through the mall area. When I got to Lakeside, I realized, I have to either walk to E. 9th or W. 3rd to get across the tracks/highway to get to the lakefront. I really couldn't believe there still wasn't a viable way for pedestrians to get to the lakefront since the old stairs/ramps closed down years ago. I loved the idea of a wide landbridge, but would settle for anything to open up pedestrian access to the lake and the attractions from that part of downtown.  

^^ I tend to agree.  There is no need for such a wide land bridge at this time.  Maybe just do a simple, less costly pedestrian bridge initially that can be widened at some point in the future once the lakefront is developed.  I'm wondering how quickly the lakefront can be developed since it will be competing with Bedrock's riverfront project.

 

Edited January 17Jan 17 by LibertyBlvd

5 hours ago, StapHanger said:

Just my opinion, but I think it would be a big mistake to blow the budget on a hugely wide bridge instead of foundation work/connections/stairs/elevators, etc. that could connect a smaller bridge to buildings added to the edge over time. If you want to hide the view of the railroad tracks, do it with walls, not $100M of extra bridge width. The malls are already depressingly empty and barren for much of the year. I don't see the appeal of extending what I'd view as a failed or compromised scheme.  I've always hated the "land bridge" concept. Much better to think of this project as a pedestrian route or progression, focusing on view points, interim things of interest, connections, quality materials, etc., to guide people on an interesting path forward. Should be designed at ground level, not from the helicopter views we keep seeing that gloss over how it will actually be experienced in real life or viewed from the Mall or lakefront.

 

I agree that connections to development will be a key factor in the success of the land bridge; I believe the lack of surrounding (pedestrian-generating) development is one of the main reasons the mall has always been so empty. And the fact that there's literally nothing there.

 

That's also why I don't think it's fair to assume an extension to the mall would necessarily have the same fate. The lakefront would have much more pedestrian oriented development that would drive activity.

 

I don't imagine a wider land bridge as another big grass mall (the current iteration of the mall is mostly like that because it's the roof of the convention center). Instead I'd really like to see something like the land bridge currently under construction in Philly with a variety of active uses:

 

 

Whether this is feasible is another question. But with the stadium likely gone, it might be time for a paradigm shift from it's original conception as a people-highway for mega events to a public square for a new lakefront neighborhood. Now that there's more room for development that's actually financially sustainable (*cough, cough*) I think the cost could be justified long-term.

 

On 1/17/2025 at 3:29 PM, sonisharri said:

 

 

Whether this is feasible is another question. But with the stadium likely gone, it might be time for a paradigm shift from it's original conception as a people-highway for mega events to a public square for a new lakefront neighborhood. Now that there's more room for development that's actually financially sustainable (*cough, cough*) I think the cost could be justified long-term.

 

IMO the only way a neighborhood and dense development is feasible in Cleveland is in conjunction with the NFL and a stadium village.  

45 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

IMO the only way a neighborhood and dense development is feasible in Cleveland is in conjunction with the NFL and a stadium village.  

 

It won't be very dense, otherwise.   One thing people often overstate on these fora is the number of area residents who desire dense living conditions.  The odds are very good that new ones will merely poach from older ones.

The current Y shape land bridge may be settled but we have to admit we still like Haslam's initial concept for a more interesting land bridge (along with the high-rises abutting downtown) - but not Haslam's concepts for the lakefront part where we like Field Operations' public space programming much better.

 

https://www.clevelandbrowns.com/news/browns-support-city-of-cleveland-s-vision-to-enhance-lakefront-connectivity

 

3 minutes ago, Willo said:

The current Y shape land bridge may be settled but we have to admit we still like Haslam's initial concept for a more interesting land bridge (along with the high-rises abutting downtown) - but not Haslam's concepts for the lakefront part where we like Field Operations' public space programming much better.

 

https://www.clevelandbrowns.com/news/browns-support-city-of-cleveland-s-vision-to-enhance-lakefront-connectivity

 

(sigh).  Before the greed kicked in.   I'd still love to see this, with a bunch of publicly financed parking ramps that Haslam can keep on game days. 

1 hour ago, E Rocc said:

 

It won't be very dense, otherwise.   One thing people often overstate on these fora is the number of area residents who desire dense living conditions.  The odds are very good that new ones will merely poach from older ones.

 

I think you're probably correct that the number of Cleveland area residents who desire dense conditions is relatively low, on the demand side of the equation. However, that group of people does still exist, and the supply of dense neighborhoods available is very low too. Compare cities like Cincy, Pittsburgh, etc. and there's far more to choose from.

 

Not to mention the people who move to Cleveland from elsewhere for job reasons but prefer dense conditions. Or people who leave Cleveland because it's not dense enough who would have otherwise stayed.

 

One approach would be to develop the lakefront with parking/retail podiums that could allow residential to be added once demand exists (a la The Beacon). Initial development could also focus on new hotels to satisfy sky-high demand.

https://www.ideastream.org/sports/2025-01-16/browns-may-reconsider-leaving-downtown-cleveland-cuyahoga-county-executive-says

16 hours ago, sonisharri said:

 

I think you're probably correct that the number of Cleveland area residents who desire dense conditions is relatively low, on the demand side of the equation. However, that group of people does still exist, and the supply of dense neighborhoods available is very low too. Compare cities like Cincy, Pittsburgh, etc. and there's far more to choose from.

 

Not to mention the people who move to Cleveland from elsewhere for job reasons but prefer dense conditions. Or people who leave Cleveland because it's not dense enough who would have otherwise stayed.

 

One approach would be to develop the lakefront with parking/retail podiums that could allow residential to be added once demand exists (a la The Beacon). Initial development could also focus on new hotels to satisfy sky-high demand.

I would add a further argument that density helps with affordability.  Someone may not be as inclined to live in a dense neighborhood, but if he price is right in a prime location, they may give it a shot.   

2 hours ago, newyorker said:

https://www.ideastream.org/sports/2025-01-16/browns-may-reconsider-leaving-downtown-cleveland-cuyahoga-county-executive-says

If true, could be the $150 million in public infrastructure $ already approved surrounding the current stadium that has Jimmy and Dee's attention - especially with phase 1 possibly starting as soon as 2027.  It could now make sense to them to stay and start stadium renovations soon along with a lease extension (with future prioritized opportunities at portions of Burke). 

DeWine may also prefer only having to to add more State monies to the lakefront + stadium as long expected - rather than also having to provide scarce State $ on a new BP stadium and unknown hundreds of millions more $$ for surrounding freeway infrastructure - is a heavy political lift.  Plus Cincy is running a tab for DeWine for their equal share of whatever Northeast Ohio gets.  We hope Ronayne's instinct is correct and also that DeWine was actively listening during his recent listening tour.

Can we go back to the lakefront the Haslams envisioned? It’s way better than what they have planned now.

Edited January 19Jan 19 by JB

But that plan was just the definition of conceptual.  It was so early on with so many necessary studies still to be completed that it was just pretty pictures with no idea what it should contain, where it should go and why.

3 minutes ago, Htsguy said:

But that plan was just the definition of conceptual.  It was so early on with so many necessary studies still to be completed that it was just pretty pictures with no idea what it should contain, where it should go and why.

But one would assume if all parties were aligned on making something great on the Lakefront for the Browns, the city and all residents of the region, it could come together quickly.  

52 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

But one would assume if all parties were aligned on making something great on the Lakefront for the Browns, the city and all residents of the region, it could come together quickly.  

History shows that nothing on the lakefront comes quickly, and I don’t doubt that this will continue into the future. To your point, it would be great if all the parties were in lineand cooperating. My point was that the original Browns presentation was not something that was probably going to be the final product. It was very conceptual and early days and was supposed to just kickstart everything.

^ Yes but IF Haslam comes around things should pick up quickly. The stadium work would have to get started soon and the rest of the landbridge, road work and lakefront could get started as well. We could go from 0 to 60  before you know it. Momentum baby!

I wonder if Haslam said he’d do the downtown renovation but he wanted to control development/do his own plan, would Bibb go for that?

I think Bibbs done WONDERS compared to past administrations of this city, however he is letting DEI steer this development site with a mission of recreation places for people that “never felt welcome down at the lakefront” (His words, not mine) due to the use of public tax dollars, which I don’t believe fits with Haslam vision of High End/Luxury everything of which he wants to build from scratch and I absolutely believe that was a driving factor in the BP decision. I fully suspect that any DT stadium deal will result in “less inclusion” and more “high end” whatever, which I fully support here as Jimmys called his bluff on this and threatening to take his toys home. Cut your losses and settle for a public Lakefront Boardwalk in a high end neighborhood which will help subsidize the community via taxes and his elimination of tax abatements for in demand areas.

47 minutes ago, ogibbigo said:

I think Bibbs done WONDERS compared to past administrations of this city, however he is letting DEI steer this development site with a mission of recreation places for people that “never felt welcome down at the lakefront” (His words, not mine) due to the use of public tax dollars, which I don’t believe fits with Haslam vision of High End/Luxury everything of which he wants to build from scratch and I absolutely believe that was a driving factor in the BP decision. I fully suspect that any DT stadium deal will result in “less inclusion” and more “high end” whatever, which I fully support here as Jimmys called his bluff on this and threatening to take his toys home. Cut your losses and settle for a public Lakefront Boardwalk in a high end neighborhood which will help subsidize the community via taxes and his elimination of tax abatements for in demand areas.

I don’t think it’s objectively bad to focus on “DEI” for a thing that quite literally hasn’t been a part of most clevelanders life depending on where you live. This is a generational opportunity and allowing the lakefront to be developed full of luxury apartment buildings (especially when there’s arguably very little demand right now) and very little public space is a bad decision. 

Edited January 20Jan 20 by noname
Trying to be nicer.

5 hours ago, ogibbigo said:

I think Bibbs done WONDERS compared to past administrations of this city, however he is letting DEI steer this development site with a mission of recreation places for people that “never felt welcome down at the lakefront” (His words, not mine) due to the use of public tax dollars, which I don’t believe fits with Haslam vision of High End/Luxury everything of which he wants to build from scratch and I absolutely believe that was a driving factor in the BP decision. I fully suspect that any DT stadium deal will result in “less inclusion” and more “high end” whatever, which I fully support here as Jimmys called his bluff on this and threatening to take his toys home. Cut your losses and settle for a public Lakefront Boardwalk in a high end neighborhood which will help subsidize the community via taxes and his elimination of tax abatements for in demand areas.

There's a difference between why something is done, and how it is explained. With regards to the Lakefront, you have the two mixed up. Bibb sought public comment to find out what people wanted from the lakefront. A vision/plan was created from that feedback. The plan was then defended using political ideas popular at the time, but it wasn't created based on those ideas (regardless of what politicians may have said). People wanting access to free outdoor activities isn't what anyone on either side is calling DEI, it's just something that is generally popular. 

 

Also, I don't think there's any going back anymore. The city not accepting the Haslam Lakefront proposal carte blanche may have contributed to the Browns (attempt at) leaving downtown, but I don't think they'd come back at this point if the city offered them full planning control, nor do I think the City would ever offer it. Nor should they to be honest, I think the City went about this the right way. 

 

Personally, I like the redesign, and I think the area North of the stadium is much better in the City's plan than the Haslam's plan. As I detailed above, there are aspects of the actual land bridge in the Haslam proposal though that are preferable. 

14 hours ago, coneflower said:

I wonder if Haslam said he’d do the downtown renovation but he wanted to control development/do his own plan, would Bibb go for that?

 

I expect that to be the final outcome, perhaps not explicitly.

12 hours ago, noname said:

I don’t think it’s objectively bad to focus on “DEI” for a thing that quite literally hasn’t been a part of most clevelanders life depending on where you live. This is a generational opportunity and allowing the lakefront to be developed full of luxury apartment buildings (especially when there’s arguably very little demand right now) and very little public space is a bad decision. 

 

IMO this area doesn't really need anything more than public access via a boardwalk, and maybe some small green space.   Once again this is the lakefront....but it's also the east side of the mouth of the Cuyahoga river, inside the harbor break wall.  Storms bring muddy water, dead fish, trash and lots of floating trees (along with an occasional decomposing body).  It's not a pristine beach that you'd want to dangle your toes in.    This kind of "lakefront" site might be better viewed from a distance, perhaps from the inside of a restaurant or apartment (luxury or not).  

The Browns and city’s lakefront designs look pretty similar to me. They have the same basic components in the same general areas. The city’s plan has a bit more park to it but it’s not massively different. I’m sure that is probably pretty frustrating to Bibb they basically formalized what Haslam wanted and then we pulled out. 
 

I don’t know how they get the Haslams back downtown without a bunch of concessions though. Owning and controlling 100 acres I’m sure is very exciting to them. Keeping the stadium where it is would seem to eliminate all that potential real estate value for the Browns, unless the city gives all that land to the team to do what they want or has away to pass along more revenue to them. 

Jimmy wants a dome in his lifetime. And not when he's declining but while there are some good years still. At BEST he's getting one, somewhere, when he's 73, and the clock keeps ticking. 

 

I don't see how it happens by the lakefront unless there are some major behind-the-scenes discussions. And we all know that most likely isn't happening. 

 

 

Edited January 20Jan 20 by TBideon

21 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

 

IMO this area doesn't really need anything more than public access via a boardwalk, and maybe some small green space.   Once again this is the lakefront....but it's also the east side of the mouth of the Cuyahoga river, inside the harbor break wall.  Storms bring muddy water, dead fish, trash and lots of floating trees (along with an occasional decomposing body).  It's not a pristine beach that you'd want to dangle your toes in.    This kind of "lakefront" site might be better viewed from a distance, perhaps from the inside of a restaurant or apartment (luxury or not).  

I think the debris can be easily handled with with robotic devices like a big roomba to hoover up the shore and river.

https://www.portofcleveland.com/flotsam-jetsam/

 

Lessons to learn? Albeit this is smaller than what Cleveland is dealing with.

 

 

 

I've been having some fun trying to do my own version of the lakefront plans north of the stadium, using some places around the world like Auckland, Rotterdam, and others for inspiration.  Like others here have mentioned, I worry both the Haslam and City plans for the space just don't have enough to draw people there consistently, and it needs more foot traffic.

 

This is just one corner of the plan, but it would be roughly 120 apartments, 150 hotel rooms, a few restaurants, and what could be one of the most unique aquariums in the world that could be between 150k-250k sq ft which is 2-4 times the size of the current one.  It could also have an enclosed connection to the Science Center using the existing walkway along the Mather.  It would also fit in perfectly with the City's current bridge plans.

 

I love the markethall in Rotterdam (here for those who haven't seen it) , but we just don't have the population density to support something like that here.  This idea would repurpose the markethall, most of the restaurants on the outside of the hall, and the grocery store and shopping space below the main floor into the aquarium.  And have the ceiling painted with aquarium and Cleveland themes..  Then make the 230 apartments in the building into a mix of apartments and hotel. Imagine walking through a shark tunnel that is open to the painted ceiling, city views, and natural light above from the wall of windows. We could have one of those tall fish tanks going up towards the ceiling in the center of it.  Looking out from a hotel window down onto an aquarium could be a massive tourism draw, especially being right next to the Rock Hall.

 

I also just quickly made a VERY rough edit of what the skyline would look like from inside the building using pictures from the NFL Draft.  I did keep the people in the draft photo because it looked funny, and all renderings have too many people oddly existing in spaces.