Why do we need another planning process for the Lakefront?  We just underwent one which forsaw the port moving from that land and suggested what development should be there.  This was not unforseen!  I can see reassessing the industrial area that the port is moving to in order to ensure that it is done right, but I wouldn't throw the entire lakefront plan out.

I think that the planning process would become much more site specific. The old plan was pretty generic and simply said that the area should become residential. It provided a street grid, but it was more of a suggestion of an eventual direction. I think that this is a great way to be thinking.

"It's easy to view the Eaton proposal as the first step toward a rapid development of other single-purpose corporate "campuses" pressing even closer to the water's edge. But Wasserman, who supports the Eaton move, said he doesn't want that to happen."

 

Thank you Mr. Wasserman.  Many of us feel the same.

I think that the planning process would become much more site specific. The old plan was pretty generic and simply said that the area should become residential. It provided a street grid, but it was more of a suggestion of an eventual direction. I think that this is a great way to be thinking.

 

Ahh, you're right.  After reading your post I see how this is planning at a different level than what was done already.

"We'd like to bring in some talent to stir people's imagination," he said, "folks that have worked on waterfronts in Sydney [Australia] and Barcelona [spain]. What are the greatest cities that have had an opportunity like ours? Why don't we bring those folks in?"

 

I find this very refreshing. Bring in the world's best to renew the waterfront. Experienced planners and engineers with a proven track record, specifically  in coastal restoration. 

 

No offense, but I think the makeover we require is a feat of coastal planning well beyond what the locals can provide. And certainly well beyond what I've seen from the Army Corps of Engineers.

Developing the current port property at the lake is going to require building sewer infrastructure that is going to require a lot of uphill pumping.  That means energy.  Just sayin'.

 

Hey, can they make it less windy there in December?

Developing the current port property at the lake is going to require building sewer infrastructure that is going to require a lot of uphill pumping.  That means energy.  Just sayin'.

 

Hey, can they make it less windy there in December?

 

Why? Use the wind to power a pump to get the sewage up the hill. Problem solved.

Need high-torque multiblade windmills like those that are used to pump water on farms.

Developing the current port property at the lake is going to require building sewer infrastructure that is going to require a lot of uphill pumping.  That means energy.  Just sayin'.

 

Hey, can they make it less windy there in December?

 

If they align the streets right, yes, they can cut down on the wind some.

Developing the current port property at the lake is going to require building sewer infrastructure that is going to require a lot of uphill pumping.  That means energy.  Just sayin'.

 

Hey, can they make it less windy there in December?

 

The current port property is currently developed and should have high capacity infrastructure for the work that is being performed there.  I could see some upgrades needed due to new infrastructure.

 

Why? Use the wind to power a pump to get the sewage up the hill. Problem solved.

 

Great idea!  If engineered with some forethought, there would be limited need to convert energy from mechanical to electrical, which would greatly reduce energy loss.  I've often imagined a similar scenario using mechanic energy from a wind mill at the top of EdgeHill in ClvHts to power a bicycle towline to assist cyclists up EdgeHill!

Mayor Jackson is discussing the Lakefront on WCPN this a.m.

 

In a nutshell:

 

He said he wants this city to embrace the water, for Cleveland to be a city that faces north, rather than east to west.

 

Touted his decisions on keeping Burke and Port relocation as definitive measures for real growth.

 

That the Wolstein and Stark developments along with West Shoreway plan are signs of progress.

 

Then when it came to Eaton it got weird. The host was actually grilling him (in the most polite, npr-ish way) that the Eaton location would hurt public access and might not be the best use for scarce, waterfront real estate. 

 

Mayor Jackson stated that Eaton's footprint would indeed be private property, and that there would no opportunity for any public access (Sherwin Williams Part II). But (bizarre alert) that Eaton's property wouldn't be much different from the Wostein project in that regard since the FEB would have some limited public access, but be mostly filled with private business and residential.

 

The Mayor then stated that there were "many obstacles to public access" but that he was certain all would be overcome in the future. He insinuated that it was idiotic to build railroad tracks, the shoreway and Cleveland Brown Stadium where they are (AGREE!!!) but I think this was to his defense, as a way of saying "look, this was all screwed up already."

 

I am not really comfortable with how evasive and vague he was on the public access issue. Until the right of coastal access is codified in city or state laws, we will merely be at the mercy of the developers when it comes to actually reaching the water.

I'm confused. Public access to the loop or access to the waterfront?

The discussion was about overall public access, not just the loop.

That doesn't make any sense.  From what you've written (I didn't hear the interview) I think Jackson's "public access" is referring to parks and greenspace.  Eaton's campus is the only thing going inside the loop; there will be no reason for anyone to enter the loop unless they work for Eaton or have business there.  It is lakefront land that will be used for Eaton business and that is all, and whether or not that is acceptable has been debated on the FEB thread.

 

The way you describe Jackson's response makes me think he's not really with it.  He says, "Well, Eaton is private property so that means it's not public.  So too, really, is the rest of the Wolstein development.  It's residential and private business."  Well, no, they are completely different, because residents are members of the freaking public.  Just because the land is mostly filled by private buildings and isn't owned by the public doesn't mean you're restricting public access.

 

As far as orienting the city north rather than east-west, that ship has too sailed.  Look at the infrastructure: nearly every major avenue and all but one of our interstates orients the city east-west.  All our rail lines do the same. 

Agreed Jackson sounded really wishy washy with the whole lakefront public access issue. It was weird. Comparing Eaton and the Wolstein plan just doesn't make sense in my book, two very different concepts.

 

The Mayor's best answer would've been that the loop was inaccesible anyway, so no harm done.

 

I think the interviewer was more worried with the future possibility of more strictly private, Eaton style development along the shore, and rightly so.

Mods if there is an appropriate thread for this, please combine.  I could not find one.

 

With all of the good news about developments that appear to be happening, such as FEB, Pesht, Jacob's Public Square, everything going on in UC, it will be the biggest building boom in the city.  Have we yet again ignored the lake?

 

What potential developments could connect the city to the lake?  The convention center pops to mind.  There is also the port relocation.  Is there anything else?

 

Will future generations look back at this time and curse us idiots for ignoring the lake?

 

Those fears aside, how do we leverage the knowledge and connections of the members of this board to bring lakefront development to the front burner.  Or is it there already?

Punch,

 

there are various threads on each topic

 

Lakefront Development News: Cleveland

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,3638.0.html

 

Cleveland Convention Center/Medical Mart Thread

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,1782.0.html

 

Cleveland: Port Relocation

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,9777.0.html

Thanks, MTS.  I was looking for the tread discussing the 50 year lakefront plan. 

The Lakefront is certainly Cleveland's most underutilized asset, and a very frustrating issue to address.

 

Whereas many other coastal cities benefit greatly using their location as a magnet to tourism and a high quality of life, our shoreline languishes under the horrible decisions made over the last hundred years.

 

I have to give props to the Campbell Administration for attempting to make the waterfront a major priority. However, the most disappointing aspects of the Lakefront Plan is 1. the plan has no teeth, there is no point of legal enforcement (so it's merely a passive guideline of nice graphics) and 2. the very long duration is not nearly as motivating as broader, quicker, more immediate solutions.

 

The reality that things might not really change that much in our lifetime is a real downer. Another sad reality is that the future of our lakefront is largely in the hands of developers, so at this point we- the public- are at their mercy.

 

There is no statutory requirement to increase or maintain any public access to the waterfront. And because of "home rule" in Ohio, that is something that may have to be remedied at the state level.  But as far as making a difference goes, legally ensuring the right public access would  be a major victory for the future.

 

 

but we also have to remember, our lakefront, unlike many others has always been a working lakefront.

 

Not until the 80's did people look at it from a recreational or housing perspective.

 

In addition the soil and how the natural shoreline was created is some sort of issue, if my memory serves me correctly.

Very good points MTS, that things got out of balance very much in favor of industry.

 

Even if someone had a nice place on the Lake, for some years you wouldn't want to even go near the water. This could explain why so many lakefront properties focus solely on "the view" and completely ignore that often times, the "beaches" are actually horrible pile of concrete, landfill, metal and other refuse (see Lakewood, Bratenhal, etc.)

 

Oh, and as far as how "natural" the shoreline is now, another criticism of the Lakefront Plan is the best coastal engineers were never brought in to consult on how much restoration is actually possible.

 

We could look to Toronto, who is light years ahead of us right now with re-connecting to their lakefront.

 

But also agree with C-Dawg that the beaches, including Edgewater Park, were once very very beautiful and well maintained. And lets be clear, the problems with the Lake are STATE WIDE and not unique to Cleveland. 

 

 

 

but we also have to remember, our lakefront, unlike many others has always been a working lakefront.

 

Not until the 80's did people look at it from a recreational or housing perspective.

 

In addition the soil and how the natural shoreline was created is some sort of issue, if my memory serves me correctly.

Now you’re an expert on our lakefront?

 

but we also have to remember, our lakefront, unlike many others has always been a working lakefront.

 

Unlike many others? Are you kidding? It's the same thing for Chicago, Buffalo, Toledo, Duluth, Sandusky, Erie, etc., etc. All the major Great Lakes ports (and ocean ports) have working waterfronts (meaning a large shipping component). Still, many have managed to increase public access to the water and are undergoing large redevelopments. Cleveland does lag behind in lakefront development. For some reason, Cleveland focused more on Cuyahoga Creek. There IS however one big difference between Cleveland and the other Great Lakes cities. Cleveland's port is right smack in downtown. Most the Great Lakes cities have their port in another area (or in Toledo's case, two other areas).

 

Cleveland’s downtown lakefront has always been working, unlike others who have increased it and by the way the river and lake are naturally arrange, it’s never been a thought to live downtown until the 80’s.

 

As you state, other cities ports were not in the heart of the CBD.

 

 

 

In addition the soil and how the natural shoreline was created is some sort of issue, if my memory serves me correctly.

 

It is a completely man-made harbor (and the breakwater stretches for five miles). It doesn't have a natural harbor like you find in most other major shipping ports. Still, there's a hell of a lot more that can be done with the harbor area to increase its appeal.

I’m speaking about the actual natural shoreline and our bedrock, which is different than other cities.  I cannot find the information as to why ours is different, but maybe KJP knows.

 

Not until the 80's did people look at it from a recreational or housing perspective.

 

Not true. There used to be way more public beaches/resorts in Cleveland than there are today. It's the same story all over Ohio. Ohio has done little to help Lake Erie. We've decreased public access, destroyed beaches, destroyed over 80% of the marshland (which cleaned the water and increase wildlife), polluted the sh!t out of the water (the Cleveland dead zone) and torn down most of the summer resorts (save for Ottawa County and Cedar Point).

 

Your post doesn't surprise me one bit MTS. You, like most Ohioans, are not aware of what we once had in this state and chose to destroy. There is not single state in this country with worse track record of water pollution than Ohio. There also are very few states that have destroyed as much marshland and natural beaches. When the original settlers came to Ohio, Lake Erie was sprakling clear. The massive complex complex of marshes kept out silt, runoff, and pollution.

 

Again, I’m talking about DOWNTOWN where the port is relocated.  What part of this  don’t you understand??

 

There have never been beaches in DOWNTOWN CLEVELAND or RESIDENTIAL LIVING until the 80s.

 

:roll:

Being that the state government functions 130 miles away from Lake Erie, don't expect coastal issues to be addressed with the kind of urgency that they require.

 

I buckled and reluctantly headed over the the Rib Fest at Tower City Amp on Saturday, and I'm actually glad I went. The place was just packed with all kinds of people. The best thing was the waterfront ambience, the festival atmostphere, you could feel it. It is just something you can't ever get in Solon, Strongsville or Medina.

 

Now this is what kills me. The rib fest is a stupid ripoff but it is a good draw nonetheless because of the atmosphere. Imagine what kind of regional magnet an established boardwalk area in this town could be, a place with arcades, shopping, and waterfront views.  It's such a simple concept really. 

\

A place like a renewed Euclid Beach Park could practically materialize overnight at Scranton Peninsula or elsewhere, becoming the kind of draw that brings people back to the water. 

Hey C-Dawg are the jetty's parallel to the beach in Presqu Isle considered tombolos?

Two threads were combined and based here in the city discussion section, since the older thread dealt mainly with the lakefront plan. Individual projects such as the port relocation, Pesht, etc. should continue to be discussed at the Cleveland development projects section.

So cue the Pollyanna picture

 

What strategies can I, or we, persue to put lakefront development higher on the regional adgenda?  Do we go to elected officials, or lobby groups such as the Cleveland Foundation or even Cleveland Public Art?

Unless your a big developer, I don't think there's a silver bullet solution....just try and get more people involved with realizing this great resource we have.

 

ps.

 

Here's some info on the Ohio Coastal Managment Program that nobody knows about:

 

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Default.aspx?alias=www.dnr.state.oh.us/coastal

Oh man, I hate those things!!!  Very dangerous for surfing and swimming, not to mention they look very unnatural. 

 

I am not against the tombolos I've seen on wiki/google on a larger scale, but those Presque Isle formations are not good.

 

In fact, I worked to convince Chris Ronayne to remove a similar proposal at Edgewater Park under the Lakefront Plan.

 

But I definitely agree with your Wetlands/marsh restoration. Sign me up.

 

Hey C-Dawg are the jetty's parallel to the beach in Presqu Isle considered tombolos?

 

yes. The tombolos/segmented offshore breakwaters work to trap sand particles and are the most effective and best-looking way to restore beaches. The steel groins at Crane Creek were the worst and resulted in a very irregular beach with lots of sand on one side but not the other. Tombolos maintain a smoother, more natural beach.

 

They could be used anywhere outside of the Cleveland breakwater. There isn't enough sand to build a natural beach within the breakwater since it basically blocks all littoral transport.

Thanks for posting the pics!! And those would work even at the depth of the lake where the breakwall is located?

 

I'm not against them being off the breakwall, just at edgewater park, it being one of the few places in the area with naturally breaking waves.

 

"East Harbor used to be by far Ohio's largest beach, with over 2.5 miles of uninterrupted sand....The southern part was wiped out by a nightmare storm in 1972. The majority of the beach has not been restored due to lack of state funding"

 

Why does every state on the east coast replenish their beaches with OUR money, and we can't get fed money here???

 

"They could be used anywhere outside of the Cleveland breakwater. There isn't enough sand to build a natural beach within the breakwater since it basically blocks all littoral transport."

 

Okay then, I misunderstood. Thats too damn bad.

 

When the Port relocates, there might be an argument for removal of some of the harbor breakwall. This would allow for some littoral drift, and give Whiskey Island/Wendy Park an honest chance of being a real beach.

great discussion here. thanks for the many insightful posts.

 

does anyone have any idea how the proposal to create a marsh and narrow beach along the breakwall would affect the current shoreline?  this idea was floated a few years ago by Roger Thoma at a workshop sponsored by EcoCity Cleveland.  It was later reprinted in the PD.  IMO, it is THE MOST exciting idea I've yet seen proposed for our fair city.  any ideas on the feasibility of this proposal as well as the effects on the current shoreline?  More than just about anything, I wish this idea would become reality!

 

http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/ecologicaldesign/blue/ideabank/breakwall_habitat.html

 

thanks!

 

other relevant links:

 

EcoCity's IdeaBank for the lakefront

http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/ecologicaldesign/blue/ideabank/ideabank_main.html

 

a study on the market for lakefront housing:

http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/ecologicaldesign/blue/lakefront-housing.html

Of course state government is mostly responsible for what happened to the lake (and the national government too). It's a Toledo and Sandusky problem just like it's a Cleveland problem.

The ODNR budget has been slashed by more than half over the years.  Who on the forum would accept fees at Ohio State Parks so that they can have a budget to improve Huntington Beach, Edgewater, Wildwood, and Mentor Headlands?  Ohio is one of the few states without entry fees for state parks.

2. Restore marshland. The main reason the lake got dirty and lost clarity actually is not from industrial pollution (though that's responsible for all the Cuyahoga fires). The lake got dirty from too much siltation and runoff. Marshes prevent this. They trap all the silt and runoff before it gets in the lake. This greatly reduces pollution and keeps the water beautiful and clean. To protect the marsh, you need a barrier beach (like East Harbor I mentioned above). Lake Erie used to be sparkling clear when it had its full marsh system. Today, we only have about 10% of the original marsh system left. We destroyed our marshes, and the water got dirty as a result. We also have sloppy agricultural practices that increase runoff and siltation. Buffer strips along creeks and ditches can go a long way in preventing silt and runoff from getting into the major rivers and lake. Ohio (save for Marcy Kaptur who fights incredibly hard for marshland restoration and better agricultural practices) tends to have the attitude of "we just don't give a f$&k about our water." It's not just Lake Erie that is dirty (though at least now it's only dirty in Toledo and Cleveland), it is every single river, creek, and ditch in this state. Ohio's favorite color for water is brown.

 

Phosphate fertilizer runoff from the Maumee River valley has disrupted the nutrient balance and given the lake its weird look.

 

Lake Erie's level has always risen and fallen in multiyear cycles.  During high water years, the silt from the streams, with help from littoral currents, formed the ridges that defined the beaches.  There were large pools behind these ridges that were wonderful wildlife habitat.  When people developed that land, they put in ditches or whatever it took to take the water away so that they could have dry land to build on.  I don't know how to undo that. 

 

Some of the original habitat still exists at Crane, Ottawa, and Arcola Creek preserves.

great discussion here. thanks for the many insightful posts.

 

does anyone have any idea how the proposal to create a marsh and narrow beach along the breakwall would affect the current shoreline?  this idea was floated a few years ago by Roger Thoma at a workshop sponsored by EcoCity Cleveland.  It was later reprinted in the PD.  IMO, it is THE MOST exciting idea I've yet seen proposed for our fair city.  any ideas on the feasibility of this proposal as well as the effects on the current shoreline?  More than just about anything, I wish this idea would become reality!

 

http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/ecologicaldesign/blue/ideabank/breakwall_habitat.html

 

thanks!

 

other relevant links:

 

EcoCity's IdeaBank for the lakefront

http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/ecologicaldesign/blue/ideabank/ideabank_main.html

 

a study on the market for lakefront housing:

http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/ecologicaldesign/blue/lakefront-housing.html

 

Cool idea guv -- thanks for posting! 

 

The article said that this idea was presented as part of the Lakefront Planning process.  However, I don't remember it being a part of the final Lakefront plan.  Guv or anyone else -- Do you know why it was not included in the final plan?

Thanks for posting the breakwall links Guv...that website GreenCityBlueLake is incredible.

 

C-Dawg I think wetlands and marshland restoration is an integral component of any progress here. And the concepts of restoration and development need not be mutually exclusive.

 

http://www.mccullagh.org/db9/10d-18/point-pelee-national-park-marsh.jpg

 

Chicago is light years ahead of us. The Lakefront Plan dropped the ball....

 

This MUST happen in Cleveland:

 

In Chicago,

protecting the lakefront is the law

 

The protection of a free and open public lakefront is part of the civic culture of Chicago. Here is the city ordinance that helps to minimize intrusions of development.

 

Lake Michigan and Chicago Lakefront

Protection Ordinance

 

CHAPTER 16-4

(CHAPTER 194B*)

 

The basic policies which shall govern present and future development programs for Chicago’s lakefront are the following:

 

1) Complete the publicly owned and locally controlled park system along the entire Chicago lakefront.

 

2) Maintain and enhance the predominantly landscaped, spacious and continuous character of the lakeshore parks.

 

3) Continue to improve the water quality and ecological balance of Lake Michigan.

 

4) Preserve the cultural, historical, and recreational heritage of the lakeshore parks.

 

5) Maintain and improve the formal character and open water vista of Grant Park with no new above-ground structures permitted.

 

6) Increase the diversity of recreational opportunities while emphasizing lake-oriented leisure time activities.

 

7) Protect and develop natural lakeshore park and water area for wildlife habitation.

 

8) Increase personal safety.

 

9) Design all lake edge and lake construction to prevent detrimental shoreline erosion.

 

10) Ensure a harmonious relationship between the lakeshore parks and the community edge, but in no instance will further private development be permitted east of Lake Shore Drive.

 

11) Improve access to the lakeshore parks and reduce through vehicular traffic on secondary park roads.

 

12) Strengthen the parkway characteristics of Lake Shore Drive and prohibit any roadway of expressway standards.

 

13) Ensure that all port, water supply, and public facilities are designed to enhance lakefront character.

 

14) Coordinate all public and private development within the water, park, and community zones.

 

The Lakefront Plan of Chicago, dated December, 1972, is hereby accepted as an illustration to future development recognizing that specific development proposals will be separately considered for funding and separately evaluated for conformance to the basic policies for Chicago’s lakefront.

 

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO:

 

 

It's probably seperate, but I thought the lakefront plan was tied to the goals they set for 2020?

 

(from the City Planning Commission's website... http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/cpc.html)

Mather Museum to open year round

 

Thursday, September 25, 2008

 

Cleveland's Great Lakes Science Center broke ground today on a project that will open the Mather Museum to visitors year round.

WKSU's Karen Schaefer reports:

 

http://www.wksu.org/news/daily/2008/09/25/23719.mp3

:clap:  :clap:  :clap:

I agree .. I think this will be a cool addition to North Coast Harbor.

Great Lakes Science Center Gets $1M To Build Walkway

Walkway To Connect Center To William H. Mather Museum

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/18011001/detail.html

 

POSTED: 7:19 pm EST November 18, 2008

UPDATED: 7:41 pm EST November 18, 2008

 

 

CLEVELAND -- The Great Lakes Science Center was granted $1 million to build a pedestrian walkway connecting the center to the William G. Mather Maritime Museum.

 

The $3.4 million project will construct a glass and steel 400-foot enclosed connector to the steamship museum, encouraging crossover visitors year-round.

 

The funding was approved by the Ohio Cultural Facilities Commission.

Excellent!!

I'm not excited at all.  This is just a barrier to the public's access of the lakefront. :mrgreen:

 

edit: random emoticon added as per Musky's request.

Shouldn't you put a emoticon after that statement? Any will do.

Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority chairman envisions vital waterfront development

http://www.cleveland.com/cuyahoga/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/122769183367090.xml&coll=2&thispage=2

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Tom Breckenridge/Plain Dealer Reporter

 

The catalyst for a Cleveland comeback lies where the city was born - at the gritty confluence of a river and a Great Lake, a port leader says.

 

State and local leaders must push for a multibillion-dollar injection of federal money to help move the port from east of the Cuyahoga River's mouth and make way for an "iconic" waterfront district, says lawyer Michael Wager, chairman of the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority.

 

With the national and local economies mired in bad news, Wager floated an uplifting vision for lake- and riverfront development to a crowd of 100 at a City Club speech Tuesday...

He also talked of fast-tracking the project and vacating some port land by moving bulk shipping up the river.

 

Port President Adam Wasserman, who attended the City Club luncheon, said he could foresee public access to the lake on port land, and possibly a park, in five years. The port is working with the city to hire top-flight urban planners to begin detailing redevelopment of port land.

 

:clap:

 

The length of time this project is expected to take has always been the biggest source of pessimism for me.... so this is the best part of the article to me.

The length of time this project is expected to take has always been the biggest source of pessimism for me.... so this is the best part of the article to me.

 

That's understandable. I feel the same way .. but at the same time, I realize that this is something that is planning for Cleveland's future, and it will take years to establish something solid. This will establish something new and foundational, and I see this as being primarily something for future generations of Clevelanders, which, in my opinion, is what any real visionary plan should be for.

Cleveland port seeks experts to craft grand vision

Posted by Tom Breckenridge/Plain Dealer Reporter

December 02, 2008 15:25PM

 

CLEVELAND -- By next fall, port leaders want a master plan showing how the port's gritty expanse can transform into an attractive maritime neighborhood.

 

Port staffers told members of the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority board on Tuesday that they are ready to solicit a planning consultant and financial adviser to chart the long-term redevelopment of the land west of Cleveland Browns Stadium.

 

That redevelopment is expected to unfold over the next five to 20 years. The plan calls for moving docks and warehouses from 100 acres near the stadium to a new home -- a 200-acre peninsula at East 55th Street in Lake Erie...

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/business/2008/12/clevelands_port_seeks_experts.html

 

 

 

 

 

very good. hopefully planners and architects from far and wide will respond. this prime site definately needs some outside the box creative inspiration. although welcome, the feb scheme was disappointingly bland.

 

very good. hopefully planners and architects from far and wide will respond. this prime site definately needs some outside the box creative inspiration. although welcome, the feb scheme was disappointingly bland.

 

 

I agree. I would really love to see some Cleveland firms involved in this, but I think they're too stuck in their own boxes to really come up with something fantastic and revolutionary for this area.