I'm still waiting to see what strucures if any the FAA will allow to be built at/near Burke. Remember the original Lakefront Plan took these restrictions into account, and the best they could come up with was a golf couse.

 

In any regard, it bothers me to think of all that wasted space with the ugly undeveloped bluffs and the shoreway. Imagine if we could somehow bridge the shoreway and the urban grid could just extend north of the bluffs and cascade down to the water...,iimagine all of that potential. We may not see it realized in our lifetime and that pisses me off.

That's fine that your position is that development should be focused on lots within the existing boundaries of Downtown.  Just keep in mind that reasonable people might consider the possibility of opening up additional Lakefront land for residential and commercial development, which could easily be done as a TOD, mind you, to be a good thing.

 

Yes X, the "additional land" I would open up for development would be the existing Port Authority land west of the stadium once the PA relocates to Burke. Let Pesht encompass this land and fully bring it to it's potential. Don't build on the fringes of Burke right now just because you can. Resist the urge. Hold out and let the better plan happen. Why build a couple of bldgs around Burke that are disconnected from the rest of the city when they probably could've been located somewhere else? Do you have a compelling reason to locate businesses down there? Lets take a deep breath and look at the big picture. Let's leave that land available for development that makes sense next to an airport.

I'm still waiting to see what strucures if any the FAA will allow to be built at/near Burke. Remember the original Lakefront Plan took these restrictions into account, and the best they could come up with was a golf couse.

 

In any regard, it bothers me to think of all that wasted space with the ugly undeveloped bluffs and the shoreway. Imagine if we could somehow bridge the shoreway and the urban grid could just extend north of the bluffs and cascade down to the water...,iimagine all of that potential. We may not see it realized in our lifetime and that pisses me off.

 

^Yes, surfohio, please see the thread on Bob Stark's proposed development in the warehouse district that would stretch all the way to the lakefront west of Browns Stadium, "Pesht". Burke has absolutely no chance of ever being residential (soil contamination) or a part of the downtown street grid.

You've done the studies, I presume?

^I think the PD reported on significant soil contamination in an article some time ago.  Nothing's impossible (look at Fairport Harbor), but I'd think it pretty pricey to mitigate.  Isn't all that land muck dredged up from the Cuyahoga?

 

Intermodal freight might be great northeast of Burke, but not sure I understand/agree that passenger rail should be anywhere other than the mall (or even better, Tower City).

Intermodal freight might be great northeast of Burke, but not sure I understand/agree that passenger rail should be anywhere other than the mall (or even better, Tower City).

And how to get the rail-freight north of the East Shoreway...?  Maybe when they make the shoreway into a boulevard, they could make put the Shoreway bridge over the tracks to Burke-Intermodal. 

 

I think that "somebody here" said that the passenger rail tracks into Terminal Tower have already been blocked by a building. 

It's possible to build a rail access over the Shoreway -- from two separate rail lines. I'll draw ya a map sometime.

 

And while the Federal Courthouse Tower blocks railroad access to Tower City Center from the west, it doesn't block it from the east. Nor does it block a certain type of rail vehicle from using the existing RTA tracks coming from the west. Kinda complicated. I discuss it in the Cleveland-Lorain Commuter Rail thread.

^ Whoot Whooo!  Two whistle blasts

Actually it was my idea and I have the site plans, renderings and CAD files to prove it - plus the grade I received for it too (plus two other students). It includes the ferry, Amtrack relocation, greyhound relocation, incorporating Ohio Hub and Cleveland/Lorain Rail, residential, commercial and retail development and a few other things. I even proposed it to the city.

 

I've been meaning to post it since last spring but forgot. Maybe now is the time. I try to get to it tomorrow and post it on the Burke thread.

 

 

Here you go:

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=14198.msg222133#msg222133

 

Because there are so many images, i created its own thread.

At Design Review today and Planning Commission tomomorrow:

 

1. DRC 07-115: 1111 Lakeside Avenue, Holiday Inn, Remodeling (Erieview II URP/Ward 13) [submitted 10/9/07]

 

 

APPROVAL BEING SOUGHT:  Final approval of exterior modifications as listed below.

 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed work includes:

 

• Repainting of exterior surfaces of the building.  Color Scheme:

• Main body of hotel: SW6106 – Kilim Beige

• Penthouse level and parking garage: SW6107 – Nomadic Desert (slightly deeper beige than Kilim Beige)

• Cornice and trim: SW7103 – Whitetail (warm white)

 

• Construction of a new glass-roofed entrance canopy at the main hotel entrance (approximately 40’-0” wide by 12’-0” deep) suspended from a new structural steel “mast” attached to the building.  A vertical frame-stretched exterior-grade fabric panel will be built adjacent to the mast, providing some wind-buffering for guests at the garage elevator lobbies and compositional support for the vertical mast.

 

• Construction of a cornice element at the top of the hotel tower.  The cornice will project 7’-0” from the building and will extend 5’-0” above the existing parapet walls.  A frieze-line moulding will be added at the floorline level of the penthouse to complete the proportional composition of the cornice.

 

• Installation of 10 frame-stretched exterior-grade burgundy-colored fabric panels on the East Elevation of the building.  The banners will project 8’-0” and will extend from the top of the first floor to the top of the fourth floor.

 

• Installation of a course of burgundy-colored horizontal fabric panels above the first-floor windows on the East and South Elevations, and extending the length of the South Elevation (facing Lakeside Avenue).  The panels will be 4’-6” high and will cant slightly outward at the top.  These panels will be illuminated from behind.

 

• Installation of a semi-translucent fabric mesh screening panel across the second and part of the third stories of the East Elevation of the parking garage (above the garage entry).  The panel will be approximately 115’-0” wide and 14’-0” tall and will replace a metal screen panel currently on the face of the garage at this location.

 

Major exterior signage will remain in existing locations, and existing landscaping and hardscaping will be maintained and repaired.

 

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

It is reasonable that the property owner wish to “enliven” the façade and “update” the appearance of the building, and it is the opinion of staff that the addition of the new canopy and the banners, in addition to some creative exterior lighting treatments, is one way to achieve this goal; however, the addition of the cornice to a building that was never designed to have one is not appropriate.  The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation dictate that “Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historical properties, will not be undertaken”.  Furthermore, the addition of this postmodern “decorative” element makes the building out of character with the adjacent buildings that were constructed as part of the Erieview redevelopment plan.

 

Staff recommends approval of the proposed remodeling with regard to the entry canopy, fabric panels, mesh screening panel and paint scheme, subject to the elimination of the cornice element in favor of a treatment that is more appropriate to the style of the building.

 

 

"Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historical properties, will not be undertaken”.  Furthermore, the addition of this postmodern “decorative” element makes the building out of character with the adjacent buildings that were constructed as part of the Erieview redevelopment plan"

 

And they should care why? What about modern buildings created to look like old buildings? What about all those buildings that got terrible new skins on them? Why does it matter if the building matches surrounding buildings?

 

It still floors me that there are no windows directly facing the water!!!!

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

It is reasonable that the property owner wish to “enliven” the façade and “update” the appearance of the building, and it is the opinion of staff that the addition of the new canopy and the banners, in addition to some creative exterior lighting treatments, is one way to achieve this goal; however, the addition of the cornice to a building that was never designed to have one is not appropriate.  The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation dictate that “Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historical properties, will not be undertaken”.  Furthermore, the addition of this postmodern “decorative” element makes the building out of character with the adjacent buildings that were constructed as part of the Erieview redevelopment plan.

 

 

Thank God.  This statement should be spread far and wide to rid us of this pasted on garbage. 

Interesting statement from a prominent urbanist:

Many believe architecture should reflect the historical "and should have a minimal sense of belonging to an identity, so it is a completely conterproductive and reactionary idea and also part of this nostalgia.  It would be really interesting to locate that moment when nostalgia started to become the dominant mode.  And when would you locate it?  Postmodernism."

 

Postmodernism is a movement of people afraid or unthoughtful enough to progress into and accept the future.

End rant.

Postmodernism is a movement of people afraid or unthoughtful enough to progress into and accept the future.

 

Is that from the quoted "prominent urbanist", or from you?  That's some fairly nasty language.

 

Granted, I agree with the staff recommendation, but at least it isn't bilious.

It was Rem Koolhaas.  I would hardly consider quoting myself, thanks for asking though.

I'd hardly consider Rem Koolhaas an urbanist.  His architecture generally falls into the stand alone "f.u. urban environment, I am a product of singular genius, so stand back and marvel at my magnificence" school of architecture.

^You said what I was thinking.

Thanks

If it makes x and muski feel better, I'll edit it to say architect.  You're welcome.

It will make your post more accurate.  Thanks.

Who's muski?

Who's muski?

 

*sniffs*

 

Evidently, I am.

No he's talking about MUSKY. Oh I'm slow, I got it. :-)

Honestly, that's one of the ugliest hotels I know of. With or without the cornice and banners.

^Cannot say that I disagree but it was pretty much the standard Holiday Inn high rise design when it was built in the early 70's and you see them across the country.

One only needs to look at Viking Hall ay CSU. It used to be a Holiday Inn. It looks pretty much the same as the HI Lakeside.

Yeah. It's unfortunate that Holiday Inn has such low standards on all of their buildings. Oh, well. What can you do?

 

Slap a cornice on and some red banners, I guess.

Yeah. It's unfortunate that Holiday Inn has such low standards on all of their buildings. Oh, well. What can you do?

 

Slap a cornice on and some red banners, I guess.

 

It's a brand thing, and fault shouldn't be placed on Cleveland's shoulders.  I've been to some cities where the Holiday Inn looks like its stuck in 1967.  I have to say our Holiday Inn and Holiday Inn Express are VERY nice compared to most cities.

Doesn't Cleveland have design standards? I'm not asking this to pick a fight. Okay, maybe I am. But I'm genuinely ignorant on that one.

Doesn't Cleveland have design standards? I'm not asking this to pick a fight. Okay, maybe I am. But I'm genuinely ignorant on that one.

 

Yes, its a two sided situation.  The brand has a "price point" to operate within.  They provided design standards within Cleveland's standards.

 

Also, Look at this from Intercontinental Hotel Groups point of view.  If they add or go above market to "improve" or "maintain" a particular property in an tight market where they have to fight hard for market share, (Downtown Cleveland is filled with a lot of mid-level hotels) do you "over improve" and raise the price of the room and risk losing customers for exterior aesthetics?

 

Most travelers are concerned with interior comfort.  Clean hotel, Rooms, Bathrooms, lobby and services offered (free wifi, etc.) than what the property looks like on the exterior.

 

 

Yeah. And I understand your point. I guess that I just get frustrated when I see mediocre design because it lowers the appeal of the building/brand or whatever is represented inside. At least it does for me. When I see a building with mediocre design immediately I think, "Oh, well they're probably not very good because that building does nothing to attract me to it." But maybe that's just because I'm a designer. Maybe it's because I'm a perfectionist and I'm hard on myself, and I project that onto other things. Maybe I should stop psychoanalyzing myself. I dunno.

 

But that's the reason that I hate mediocre design. Because for me, if a city is represented by bad design in whatever form, it, in my opinion, represents the city poorly as a whole and gives people a bad image. If a city wants to attract people with a higher class palate, they need to step up their design standards across the board and demand better. But that's just me, I guess.

 

If people want to forego those standards in the name of getting development done, then there's a trade-off. But it's not the kind of trade-off I want. But again, that's just me.

Yeah. And I understand your point. I guess that I just get frustrated when I see mediocre design because it lowers the appeal of the building/brand or whatever is represented inside. At least it does for me. When I see a building with mediocre design immediately I think, "Oh, well they're probably not very good because that building does nothing to attract me to it." But maybe that's just because I'm a designer. Maybe it's because I'm a perfectionist and I'm hard on myself, and I project that onto other things. Maybe I should stop psychoanalyzing myself. I dunno.

 

But that's the reason that I hate mediocre design. Because for me, if a city is represented by bad design in whatever form, it, in my opinion, represents the city poorly as a whole and gives people a bad image. If a city wants to attract people with a higher class palate, they need to step up their design standards across the board and demand better. But that's just me, I guess.

 

If people want to forego those standards in the name of getting development done, then there's a trade-off. But it's not the kind of trade-off I want. But again, that's just me.

 

We'll since you've only seen a rendering, don't get your pressure up.  There are many times a rendering is presented, and it looks suspect, and the final product looks better than anticipated.

Well, we're at least talking about progress now.  Looks to be an extremely long progress unfortunitely.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2007/12/port_recommends_move_from_down.html

 

Port recommends move from downtown to north of E. 55th

Posted by Tom Breckenridge

December 11, 2007 19:06PM

 

 

Top port officials recommend that the port relocate to a man-made peninsula north of the East 55th Street lakefront.

 

Members of the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority's maritime committee voted unanimously Tuesday to recommend the relocation, from the port's 80-acre site downtown to a new, 200-acre site...

I thought that press release came out a week ago???  I thought the property adjacent to the airport made the most sense, but the FAA was apparently not going to allow it. Somebody on here posted a cool "transit hub" idea about it.

 

Yeesh, I know it's a big project but 20 years...very frustrating how slowly things move.

 

That's the crux of my disappointment with the lakefront plan as a whole.

I understand, but is it really fair to be disappointed or frustrated with it without showing how it could reasonably be done quicker?

There is the product called rubber soil (heated mix of scrap tires and pulverized concrete from demolition sites) that can be used with dredgings to more rapidly expand the lake fill and get it done in a decade or so. But unless we want to dredge the Cuyahoga River to a 100-foot depth in a couple of years, there really is no way to speed up the process further that I'm aware of.

Is the 20 years considering that material's use?  In addition to the time it will take to create fill the dredging dump area, there is the time to actually build all the facilites.  That has to tack on a few years to that decade or so.

To qualify for federal funds from the Army Corps of Engineers, any dredgings dump needs to have a multi-decade capacity. But it can also be combined with beach nourishment -- if the dredgings are cleaned of pollutants first. See my article at:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=2591.msg70057#msg70057

I understand, but is it really fair to be disappointed or frustrated with it without showing how it could reasonably be done quicker?

 

Do you mean the port relocation or lakefront plan in general or both?  I am sure your definition of "reasonable" may be different than mine. I'm just an average person that's frustrated by how long it will take to fix a coastline that has been horribly mistreated for 150 years. I find the timeline unacceptable. I hate waiting and that is a long long time for things to improve. I will buy everyone a shovel if that will help speed things up.  :-)

 

Seriously though, any one of us can come up with a far reaching, unrealistic, 50-100 year plan that looks terrific in a flashy powerpoint presentation. Problem is, over such a long stretch of time there are literally thousands of variables that will intervene over the course of that timeline.  As you've seen with the West Shoreway relocation, delays equal much higher costs as time goes on. The longer the city waits to fully capitalize on its waterfront the greater the damage.

 

The shoreline has to be recognized by the state of Ohio as damaged infrastructure that is in immediate need of restoration/redevelopment. A simple boardwalk along the coastline would be a realistic and timely first step. It would be a tremendous engine for retail and recreational development. And it could be constructed to coexist with the Port, bringing thousands access to view and experience the beautiful lake and striking views of our industrial and shipping heritage. The longer the city waits to fully capitalize on its waterfront the greater the damage.

 

 

I do suppose in all retrospect, 20 years is much less than another 100-150 years.  I'm not sure if that's what you're implying as well surfohio, but it does put it in better perspective.  Building for the next generation is never a bad thing, and maybe that is something we have lacked here in recent history (EDIT: mostly meaning 60's and 70's ...seems like we're still recovering from the era!)

The move could displace a state-owned marina at East 55th, but port officials said the site would be less expensive and offer more business-development opportunities than another relocation option -- a man-made island off the west breakwall.

 

From my perspective, this is a real shame. Would we be talking about just the marina portion of the park or the pier and the boardwalk as well? Maybe I'm being a NIMBY, and I recognize that something had to go, short of building offshore, but it is nice to have a park, bike trail and cafe (Andrea's) all centered around E. 55th, and the area is surprisingly well used. Not to mention, on a shoreline peppered with private, semi-exclusive yacht clubs, it's nice to have a public launching area.

I do suppose in all retrospect, 20 years is much less than another 100-150 years.  I'm not sure if that's what you're implying as well surfohio, but it does put it in better perspective.  Building for the next generation is never a bad thing, and maybe that is something we have lacked here in recent history (EDIT: mostly meaning 60's and 70's ...seems like we're still recovering from the era!)

 

Good point, lack of foresight was the problem, but I am selfish and more motivated by what benefits me!!! The next generation will be listening to bad music, spray painting buildings, reminiscing about 60's-70's architecture and pushing the elderly (us) around all over the newly renovated lakefront.

I understand, but is it really fair to be disappointed or frustrated with it without showing how it could reasonably be done quicker?

 

Do you mean the port relocation or lakefront plan in general or both? 

 

Either or both, the point really is the same.

 

 

I am sure your definition of "reasonable" may be different than mine. I'm just an average person that's frustrated by how long it will take to fix a coastline that has been horribly mistreated for 150 years. I find the timeline unacceptable. I hate waiting and that is a long long time for things to improve. I will buy everyone a shovel if that will help speed things up.  :-)

 

I'm sure our definitions of reasonable differ, but that's irrelevent.  Reason tends to be pretty impersonal as compared to emotional response. Emotionally, I want to see it done tomorrow or the next day.  Reasonably, I realize that building a whole new area of fill dirt is going to take some longer amount of time, apparently 20 years.  If someone can show how it can be done faster in a reasonable manner- cost/suitability/etc, then let's do it.  But just saying "that's taking too long" doesn't get us anywhere.

 

 

Seriously though, any one of us can come up with a far reaching, unrealistic, 50-100 year plan that looks terrific in a flashy powerpoint presentation. Problem is, over such a long stretch of time there are literally thousands of variables that will intervene over the course of that timeline.  As you've seen with the West Shoreway relocation, delays equal much higher costs as time goes on. The longer the city waits to fully capitalize on its waterfront the greater the damage.

 

I'm sure all of us could come up with a far reaching, unrealistic 50-100 year plan that looks terrific in a flashy powerpoint presentation.  The question you raise though is if any of us can come up with a short term, realistic plan to open the lakefront up to greater public use.  That's the rub.

 

 

The shoreline has to be recognized by the state of Ohio as damaged infrastructure that is in immediate need of restoration/redevelopment. A simple boardwalk along the coastline would be a realistic and timely first step. It would be a tremendous engine for retail and recreational development. And it could be constructed to coexist with the Port, bringing thousands access to view and experience the beautiful lake and striking views of our industrial and shipping heritage. The longer the city waits to fully capitalize on its waterfront the greater the damage.

 

That sounds nice, but I'm not sure how we quickly/easily get a boardwalk across an industrial port, across a river, across security obsessed marinas, etc.  And I'm not so sure that if you throw a boardwalk down there without supporting land uses that it will be used by the public.

That sounds nice, but I'm not sure how we quickly/easily get a boardwalk across an industrial port, across a river, across security obsessed marinas, etc.  And I'm not so sure that if you throw a boardwalk down there without supporting land uses that it will be used by the public.

 

I'm not sure about that ... there are a ton of people down there on the existing (repair-required) boardwalk during spring and summer months ... the little short stretch just beyond the public pier typically has 10-15 people fishing off of the boardwalk on weekends ... another 10-15 are usually fishing along the pier. On bike trips from E. 36th down Marginal Road, up the lakefront bike trail to MLK, I also usually saw an average of 50 or so people cycling, walking or running the trail on any given trip (obviously, a good deal more during Walk and Roll, Red Ribbon Ride, Parade the Circle, etc.).

 

That being said, I agree ... you won't hit the volume of people you might be inclined to without expanding additional public use around a boardwalk.

Is the marina at Whiskey Island still used?  Is it owned by the state?

 

Perhaps they can relocate the state marina to Whiskey Island. 

Is the marina at Whiskey Island still used?  Is it owned by the state?

 

Perhaps they can relocate the state marina to Whiskey Island. 

It's still being used, it's owned by Cuyahoga County, there are empty docks.

 

Overall, there ought to be enough capacity among the several marinas in Cuyahoga County to accommodate boaters.  The problem is that the fees will be significantly higher, even in the less-pleasant private marinas.

I'm sure our definitions of reasonable differ, but that's irrelevent.  Reason tends to be pretty impersonal as compared to emotional response. Emotionally, I want to see it done tomorrow or the next day.  Reasonably, I realize that building a whole new area of fill dirt is going to take some longer amount of time, apparently 20 years.  If someone can show how it can be done faster in a reasonable manner- cost/suitability/etc, then let's do it.  But just saying "that's taking too long" doesn't get us anywhere.

 

Putting so much stock into waiting for the Ports relocation is what I find unreasonable. In my opinion, that aspect is a major flaw in the Lakefront Plan. More emphasis should be put into coexisting with the Port rather than this billion dollar relocation. There are examples of mixed-use residential/retail/industrial waterfronts elsewhere in America. It's not hard to imagine a development like Stonebridge building right up alongside the port. As for boardwalks and access, the Port can grant easements across its property much faster and cheaper than building an entire new island.

 

That sounds nice, but I'm not sure how we quickly/easily get a boardwalk across an industrial port, across a river, across security obsessed marinas, etc.  And I'm not so sure that if you throw a boardwalk down there without supporting land uses that it will be used by the public.

 

No you're right it would not be easy. But siimply giving the public something we've been denied for so long, access to the waters edge, would alone work wonders and be a major accomplishment. The boardwalk would not have to be continuously supported by adjacent development, but by pockets of retail and residential, just like an urban/coastal version of the towpath trail. Right now Whiskey Island, North Coast Harbor, edgewater park, Flats planned boardwalk, etc. would be the dots to help connect and form a user friendly walkable, bikeable waterfront.

 

 

Some Steamship William B. Mather volunteers disgruntled after Great Lakes Science Center merger

Science center has new vision of ship's role

Friday, February 22, 2008

Jim Nichols

 

Sixteen months after the Great Lakes Science Center took the helm of the Steamship William G. Mather Museum, the ship's new owners are maneuvering along a new course.

 

Initially, at least, the floating museum's voyage is proving a bit rocky: A post-merger culture clash with the new owners has some longtime Mather volunteers abandoning ship.

 

The science center has a grand vision for converting the 83-year-old retired freighter it acquired in October 2006 from a museum of lakes shipping to an interactive 618-foot-long wing of the parent institution.

 

The Mather's new role will be a celebration of much broader connections between humans and the Great Lakes, said Bryan Kwapil, the science center's vice president of operations.

 

The transformation starts this spring, when work begins on a $2.7 million, glass-enclosed walkway connecting the shore-side science center to the acquisition moored 100 yards to the north. Then, in a year or so, the science center will launch a fund-raising campaign to pay for a host of new lakes-oriented exhibits, Kwapil said. The Mather will house those in the cavernous bulk-cargo holds that once carried 14,000 tons of iron ore per voyage...

"But he and Gerber believe the science center's staff should have "come in with hats in hands" to curry favor with the volunteers. Instead, science center staff told them to apply for the volunteer jobs they themselves had created and performed.

 

"After 17 years, they were asking for references," Durica fumed. "It was an insult.""

 

Should the science center have done a better job in befriending the volunteers? Probably. But as a public and non-profit entity, the Science Center isn't out of line for requiring the volunteers to follow procedures - including filling out paperwork; it's called accountability.

I think Kwapil's statement at the end of the article is kind of an asshole thing to say, and I can empathize with the volunteers with his lack of tactfulness on this matter, even though I support what the Science Center wants to do:

 

"These few individuals like to think they're the heart and soul of the Mather and the ship won't survive without them," Kwapil said.

 

"Well, that ship's been here longer than any of us, and it'll be there long after we're all gone."

 

I think with that, he's kinda brushing off the contribution they've made to the Mather. There might be some truth to what he's saying, but not the most gracious thing to say to people who aren't getting paid to support a city attraction.

 

The thing is - if the Science Center *didn't* make them register/file paperwork, etc., Carl Monday (or his ilk) would be there the first time something bad happened with "The Science Center is Wasting YOUR Tax Dollars!!!". And while it comes across as cruel, what Kwapil said is the honest-to-god truth. Kudos to the volunteers for everything they've done but "memento mori", my friends.

Port Authority's big move gives hope for a new wave

by Steven Litt / Plain Dealer Architecture Critic

Sunday March 23, 2008, 12:00 AM

 

 

Cleveland, a city with miles of ugly, neglected and underused waterfront on a river and a Great Lake, has done precious little in recent decades to capitalize on its watery blessings.

 

One reason is a lack of leaders with the guts and vision to make big plans and stick around long enough to make them stick. But maybe, just maybe, the city's relationship to the Cuyahoga River and Lake Erie is about to change dramatically for the better.

 

Adam Wasserman, one year into his new job as president and chief executive officer of the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority, has just pulled off one of the biggest city-planning coups in decades...

 

More at:  http://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2008/03/port_authoritys_big_move_gives.html