KJP you're not being melodramatic, you're just wrong. Seems to me this was sort of hoisted onto the city and even though there were attempts to make something happen, it didn't. To say this is indicative of Cleveland not competing or in some way not powerful is really short sited. Perhaps you haven't looked around lately but cities, even powerful cities, out here in the West like San Franciso, Los Angeles, Las Vegas to name a few are struggling big time to keep their quality of life assets. Cleveland has civic gems that are in good and even great shape and in this economic fiasco that is a good thing. So, this project didn't get off the ground, so what?

If this was the only project that didn't get off the ground, I'd agree with you. I cited others in a previous post. Or did you conveniently overlook those to prove an unsupportable point?

 

I've worked in the nonprofit field for 25 years. I've seen the base of foundation and philanthropic resources unable to keep up with the community needs and get progressively worse to the point that social welfare needs are devouring an increasing amount of support. Yet the philanthropic organizations are forced to give by living off the wealth amassed during the city's 100-year industrial gilded age between the Civil War and Vietnam War with little new wealth to replace it since. Yet the needs grow larger.

 

Sorry to offend your golden views by saying that Cleveland's wealth ain't what she used to be. Never mind. Everything is just fine here. Has been just hunky dory for decades.

 

Let's get back to the lakefront news...

I am honestly quite surprised this carousel was never a consideration for the Flats East Bank....

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/07/euclid_beach_carousels_resurre.html

 

Euclid Beach carousel's resurrection still in limbo for now

 

Posted by Laura Johnston/Plain Dealer Reporter

July 05, 2009 08:00AM

 

 

A carousel horse, which spun for 60 years at the famed Euclid Beach Park, rests Saturday in the Western Reserve Historical Society Museum. Like 53 matching horses in storage in Macedonia, it was saved from auction in 1997 and is waiting now for some group to someday, somewhere rebuild the carousel.

 

Euclid Beach nuts have measured, down to the inch, where the carousel once stood.

 

It's an uninspiring spot now, a ring of grass and sycamore trees overwhelmed by an asphalt parking lot. Yet a wire of white lights, grown into the trunk of a sycamore, hints at its legendary past...

Love the carousel. I sense great concern that where installed, whether it will be taken care of properly and not destroyed. Remember, it seems the city cannot even look after something as simple as fountains in the square. I think this will take a private philanthropic effort-as with many things aimed at getting a lot rolling again.

What would y'all think if the carousel were installed on Public Square?

I think until the greater problems of public square are solved it would be severely underutilized, and potentially become a "campground".

I agree. I think the idea of plopping it near the old Euclid Beach park would be a terrible idea, too .. if there isn't greater consideration for a larger plan. A carousel isn't going to "be that catalyst that draws people back" in and of itself. It might for a little while. But if this carousel is ever brought back, I want to see it brought back as part of a larger plan and vision for some kind of park area that's worthy of the carousel to call home.

Agreed, this is a terrible idea. Lakeshore Blvd. at Euclid Beach needs a lot more than a carousel right now. The shopping plaza over there looks like a ghost town that is falling apart.

Polensek is going to "draw people back" with a carousel?  I love how someone in the article said there's a clock ticking on the carousel's relevance.  Umm... that clock stopped ticking a while ago.  This isn't like League Park, because people still play baseball.  This is pretty much obsolete and its value is historical. 

 

I'm not saying a restored vintage 1909 carousel isn't impressive, or important to our heritage, I'm just saying there's a point being missed as to what our problem is.  The article brings up those strip plazas on Lakeshore... Mr. Polensek, are we assuming those will become a better planning decision once they're accompanied by a carousel?  We've tried fancy attractions before and they haven't worked.  Einstein once made a point about repetition.

 

I too would like to see this carousel supported with enough similar attractions that it can be successful as part of a unique destination.  I would keep it as faaaaaaaaaaaaar from the RRHOF as possible, since there is a bit of a clash in their respective tones.  It would probably go best in a historic district that already has a bit of a family theme.  It might work especially well at the zoo or nearby.

I like the zoo idea, put it on the old go kart site next to the zoo.  It overlooks the city and zoo.  Pretty neat spot.  Make it into one giant green space with only the carousal, open and run on zoo hours.  The kids would love it.   

^The shopping plazas along Lakeshore are definitely hurting, and Lakeshore definitely needs attention.  That Big Lots has been closed for maybe 10 years now.  Hopefully the recreation center planned for the space comes to fruition soon. 

 

The whole area around Euclid Beach was poorly planned- the suburban shopping center caters mainly to the large population of elderly residents who live in the high-rises directly adjacent to Euclid Beach, along with the trailer park which is on the other side of the Beach.  Additionally, residents directly west of the shopping center up to the Bratenahl border shop there (though many of the residents in the neighborhood use E. 185th for their needs). As many of these individuals are on lower or fixed incomes, not many establishments have chosen the shopping centers on this strip as a location. 

 

There was a masterplan done for the area around 2004 during the initial Lakefront Plan process (North Collinwood was left out of this plan, though it is one of maybe two or three neighborhoods with residential housing units fronting the lake).  The masterplan called for mixed use development along Lakeshore where the large shopping center is.  It would be nice to one day see this section of Lakeshore with mixed-use buildings fronting the street, however that's probably a long ways away.

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2009/07/the_rebirth_of_clevelands_wate.html

 

Cleveland's downtown revival starts at the water, port adviser says

by Tom Breckenridge/Plain Dealer Reporter

Tuesday July 07, 2009, 12:30 PM

 

 

The rebirth of Cleveland's waterfront should start north of Cleveland Browns Stadium and at North Coast Harbor nearby, with a dense mix of green space, boating activity and performance venues, a consultant to the Cleveland port says.

 

That would jump-start development along three neighborhoods that architect Stanton Eckstut envisions along Cleveland's downtown waterfront...

I've always considered myself a pretty long term thinker, but even I have a hard time getting excited about something that is going to be finished maybe by the time I retire.

looks like w. 28th was right about starting with the area just north of the stadium :wink:

I've always considered myself a pretty long term thinker, but even I have a hard time getting excited about something that is going to be finished maybe by the time I retire.

 

Even still, it seems like it can start being developed on the available land, even if it just it 2-3 structures this decade.  Who knows, but it also blows my mind with the whole 30-50 years thing.

Well I think it's going to take 20 years for the port to fully move, no?  And that's once they actually start moving.

X, the way we get exited on this board about bike lanes and planter designs, I am sure there is going to be plenty to be exited about over the next few years

I've always considered myself a pretty long term thinker, but even I have a hard time getting excited about something that is going to be finished maybe by the time I retire.

 

Think about it this way - you can buy a DOWNTOWN LAKEFRONT condo when you retire ;).

If this will be a phased development, we'll be able to reap at least some of the benefits sooner than later.

 

But all meaningful developments take time.

Agreed, this is going to take years...the positive side is we have a Port director who appears to recognize the value of the waterfront.

A bit more detail in this article... albeit this is all very "conceptual" at this point.  There is a graphic in the print edition that at least gives some sort of feel for a potential layout.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2009/07/the_rebirth_of_clevelands_wate.html

 

Cleveland's downtown revival starts at the water, port adviser says

by Tom Breckenridge/Plain Dealer Reporter

Tuesday July 07, 2009, 12:30 PM

 

 

CLEVELAND -- The rebirth of downtown Cleveland and beyond is possible with lakefront development that's dense, green and chock full of water-based activity, consultants to the port say.

 

Other cities in decline -- from Baltimore, Md., to Bilbao, Spain -- have used waterfront development to stem downtown decline, consultants said Tuesday...

 

 

This is potentially one of the great waterfronts in the world," said Eckstut, whose firm has planned and directed acclaimed waterside development in Baltimore and New York City.

 

If this was just this guy buttering up the clients and the general public, consider me buttered

^I have a friend who works for a well known real estate law firm who was in a meeting a year or so ago (not related to the lakefront) where one individual from a very prominent global planning firm told him that he thought Cleveland's waterfront was one of the top 3 development sites anywhere in the world.  The possibilities truly are endless.

(Paging MTS, Paging MTS!)

 

Well, since MTS is not here, I will say it.  Best Location in the Nation.  A slogan born from a description of the area at the mouth of the Cuyahoga by surveyor George Washington.

 

I think the way the lakefront and the river front can be seamlessly connected here is unusual for larger cities.

I don't think Eckstut was simply buttering people up, either. Cleveland's lakefront has incredible potential. It's collectively a massive development site. What they plan here will literally shape the city for future generations to come.

 

Something of this breadth should not be taken lightly. It's not a given they (especially the city and port authority) do this well. I'm cautiously optimistic .. and very, very excited.

Found these on the WCPN website .. very preliminary, but cool nonetheless.

 

http://www.wcpn.org/WCPN/soi/26941/

Not very impressed.  No engagement of spaces or buildings with the water, and the major segregation between the city and current port land is still there.  I wasn't excited by the selection of this firm and they seem to be fulfilling my personal expectations. 

And isn't angling the streets in that manner playing right into the winter wind patterns? 

I like Bob Stark's idea better -- extending the downtown street grid right to the water's edge by building over the tracks and bringing the shoreway down to the street level. The streets (West 9th, 6th, 3rd) don't need to change their angles at the tracks/shoreway -- keep them on their present alignments and take them right to the water.

I always like angled streets.  Not too sure about the wind patterns since I think it'll be windy down there anyways.  Angled streets create more possibilites for creative architecture as well as makes an area feel bigger than it is.

 

Not to be a Debbie Downer...but isn't this still at least 15 years away?

I like Bob Stark's idea better -- extending the downtown street grid right to the water's edge by building over the tracks and bringing the shoreway down to the street level. The streets (West 9th, 6th, 3rd) don't need to change their angles at the tracks/shoreway -- keep them on their present alignments and take them right to the water.

 

True, but another way to look at it is that this plan doesn't require the pie in the sky zillion dollar public infrastructure outlay that Stark's giant cap and WFL relocation seemed to contemplate (above and beyond the port relocation itself).  Though maybe that kind of planning-without-limits was perfectly appropriate at this advanced stage.

 

These plans are obviously just scribbles on paper, but I don't think they're so bad.  I like the suggested density, with green space limited to human sized internal squares and waterfront promenades and small-ish marinas.  I guess I was just relieved not to see lots of land wasted as giant waterfront green spaces that would be unuseably wind-blasted and cold for 6 months of the year.

I like it.

I'm not ready to say I like it, but I don't hate it.

Not to be a Debbie Downer...but isn't this still at least 15 years away?

 

I don't think all of it is. I know they're wanting to phase in development, so I think parts of it, like the area near CBS, could get started sooner.

True, but another way to look at it is that this plan doesn't require the pie in the sky zillion dollar public infrastructure outlay that Stark's giant cap and WFL relocation seemed to contemplate (above and beyond the port relocation itself).

 

That's true, too.

I think it's way too early to make judgements... though i do like the idea of a canal weaving through the site... we definitely will need more connections than w.9th, w. 3rd, and e. 9th...  it seems to me the grid runs directly into our wind patterns (typically coming southeast over the lake from chicago) but so long as they plan on narrow streets it should help a lot... The current canyons in most of our downtown, in addition to making the city look significantly less dense than it is, create ridiculous wind tunnels.

^Would gentle curving of the street help or hurt?

A cool curving, not a suburban cul-de-sac curving

 

sounds reasonable to me, but I don't really know.  All I know is that the way they have that grid currently setup seems to be heading directly into where the wind will typically be coming from.

That grid is probably on a N-S, E-W alignment.  You need to remember that the lakeshore is on an angle and the downtown grid is on more of a NE-SW, NW-SE alignment.  But the point remains the same... the prevailing easterly winds will whip right through the E-W streets.

It's still pretty south easterly / northwest... if you drew a line straight out of that grid you'd end up pretty much in milwaukee.

From IdeaStream:

 

http://www.wcpn.org/WCPN/news/26961/

 

The latest concepts for the future of Cleveland's waterfront will be presented at a public meeting July 9. 

 

ideastream®'s Rick Jackson has a preview.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The ideas come from the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority, two architectural firms, and the city of Cleveland, working collaboratively to develop the 100 acre site. That site--north and west of Browns Stadium will be vacated when the port moves to East 55th street.

 

The proposed design focuses on a combination of commercial and residential buildings and recreational uses.  Jill Akins, an architect on the project says the vision would build on existing attractions--such as as the Great Lakes Science Center.

 

JILL AKINS: “More of a neighborhood recreation type of activities. Small boats, a greenway trail, taking a park through that area. Woods and meadows, a beach area, perhaps a floating pool, boathouse cafe....”

 

Questions remain, however. Christopher Diehl is Director of Kent State’s Cleveland Urban Design Collaborative.

He says the idea is generally sound but to make it work demands population density… that’s in a town consistently `losing’ residents.

 

CHRISTOPHER DIEHL: “At the end, this is Cleveland. How can we grow toward density in a way that makes sense? How can we grow to a density that ultimate buildout makes sense for Cleveland? Can we do it in a way that reinforces the Warehouse District investment and Downtown, so that it’s really connected?”

 

Others are skeptical, too. During the conversation devoted to this on WCPN’s the Sound of Ideas, one listener, Tim from Old Brooklyn, articulated a recurring concern in greater Cleveland’s history of development projects.

 

TIM: “I been hearing these plans for the last 50 years. Millions of dollars have been spent on proposals.. When’s someone going to start digging dirt and doing something down there?”

 

The answer, it turns out, is within the next five years, though completing might take decades.

 

Rick Jackson, 90.3

 

I am so tired of the "This is Cleveland" line spewing from the mouths of this city's "leaders" in academia.  Hard to understand how they can't figure out that they should be the ones leading the voice towards density in the urban fabric.  Do you think people in Portland or where ever find the need to create excuses for LESSER expectations?  And really, Deihl's use of the line in the context of this conversation makes absolutely no sense.  The port is basically a blank slate and could be viewed as a starting point of growth in this city.  But no, Deihl needs to drag this project through the mud of all past ills.  Great job.

I am so tired of the "This is Cleveland" line spewing from the mouths of this city's "leaders" in academia.  Hard to understand how they can't figure out that they should be the ones leading the voice towards density in the urban fabric.  Do you think people in Portland or where ever find the need to create excuses for LESSER expectations?  And really, Deihl's use of the line in the context of this conversation makes absolutely no sense.  The port is basically a blank slate and could be viewed as a starting point of growth in this city.  But no, Deihl needs to drag this project through the mud of all past ills.  Great job.

 

I disagree.  I take Diehl's quote as focusing on population density and connectivity, while still keeping the Cleveland, OH sense of place.  This can all be done and still be a maritime neighborhood.

 

He is in a sense stating that we need to have an "urban fabric" that continues from downtown and the warehouse district into this neighborhood.

I suppose it could be taken that way MH.

I don't understand what Diehl meant with that either.  He could be saying that we need density, that many past decisions have been away from density, and he's afraid city leaders will irrationally insist on less density for this project.  Or, he could be saying that Cleveland and density just don't mix, that population loss necessarily = sprawl.  They just don't give us enough in the article to figure it out. 

I think that what he was saying is to plan wisely so that this additional development doesn't create sprawl and take away from the neighborhoods that are already established. 100 acres is a lot of land, and for a region that has been losing residents for decades now, this has to be done wisely .. otherwise, there will be a lot of holes left behind .. either in the new development itself, or in the CBD from companies leaving there to move to the new development.

 

I think these are valid concerns. Why are his statements such a problem? Is Cleveland some gigantic, bustling metropolis that I or Diehl don't know about? He's addressing the reality of where Cleveland is right now .. and not taking that reality into consideration when starting a development of this size is completely stupid and irrational.

 

I see no point in taking up land with a canal cutting through the site.  The river and lake provide your water "feature".  Though how much land can a canal really take up but it should all be green space instead.

Yes, but if this adds a truly urban neighborhood to a metropolis that is sorely lacking in them, it could be a good thing even if it does create vacancies in other properties.  My hypothesis is that since this development would address an imbalance that's been holding the city back, it will eventually lead to real growth (from outside) which will backfill the vacated properties. 

^ So why is this going to take 20-30 years?  Why can't we light a fire and get something done in a timely fashion?  If this were the private sector, this could be done in 5-7 years.  Unbelievable how ineffecient the public sector can be, especially in Cleveland.  I'm not a hater, always pro-Cleveland, but COME ON.  DO IT!!!  So I agree with Tim.

Diehl is well-informed on this issue, a realist and an advocate of change for the better in Cleveland. Take his comments at face value.

Also, take note of who he is...which hopefully says a lot:

 

"Christopher Diehl is Director of Kent State’s Cleveland Urban Design Collaborative. "