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. 

 

Which is why this needs to be planned very wisely, and the design of this neighborhood overall cannot be mediocre. If Cleveland expects to attract people to this neighborhood, the design standards definitely need to be high and progressive in order to attract new people to the area. I think this neighborhood needs to show the nation, if not the world, that Cleveland means business and it's ready and able to truly move forward. Otherwise, the most that it will accomplish is attracting some people from the suburbs, and that's not enough.

 

If all this new development accomplishes is shuffling people around who are already in the region, then it's aimed far too low. I want to see a neighborhood that is exciting and vibrant and progressive, that attracts people from all over and shows that something very exciting is happening in Cleveland.

Perhaps not a canal but I think a water feature that runs within the grid could certainly work.  Something that cascades from the south end of the property towards a main public waterfront area.  It could disappear under intersections and reappear on the other end.  This is assuming that the southern end of the property is built up and that it would slope towards the water.  You could get train noise mitigation, some topography, and some place to squeeze in a couple levels of parking deck.

i see all kinds of possibilities with a canal.  Both with development around it, and areas surrounded by parkland.  Plus i think it really reinforces the "waterfront" idea.  And i love the possibilities of where it terminates in the NW corner of the port, that could be an unbelievable public space.

I was looking at the comments at the end of the cleveland.com article about the public forum .. and I never thought I'd say this, but I actually agree with a lot of the first few.

Welcome aboard Loretto!

^ 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 inefficient 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.

 

I agree with you ... and Tim.  These pie-in-the-sky proposals bore me.  And we put things off into the future so no one will be accountable, or even remember, when the planners close up their blackboards and quietly slink away into the night.  For once, I applaud Clevelanders for staying away from this conference in droves... and on top of everything, I'm in total agreement with the Greenies: relocating the Port to E. 55 near the clear Lake Erie waters of Gordon Park is a stupid idea.  Greenies claim -- w/ some justification -- that a modest expansion north of no-man's land Browns Stadium could meet the ports needs well into the future. 

 

Yes, our public officials are a joke.  If I just moved here from abroad and Cleveland was presented as Democratic politics in action, I'd be a Republican.

The quality proposals: like housing, hotels, entertainment/retail and an aquarium are no closer than to realization than they were 10 years ago.  Until developers are ready to put a shovel in the ground, I wish they'd give it a rest already.  To the weary public, they're like the Boy who cried: Wolf.

It's going to take 20 to 30 years because there's ummmm.... a giant port occupying the 100 acres of land intended to be developed.  And they have to ummmm... build an entire new one.  Would people prefer they not involve the public in the process?

As a "greenie" I actually agree with moving the port.  The port needs intermodal connections, including easy access to both rail and highway.  The current location is difficult to access and takes up downtown, lakefront, and riverfront space that could be put to better use. 

It's not often that a city can expand itself into valuable lakefront land by about 20 blocks.  If this land is properly prepared for new construction when the port leaves (which is a bothersome 10 years minimum) this could transform the concept of what this city is based on.  The investigation is absolutely worth it.  It's funny when this city tries to move forward with ideas (whether the masterplan firm is right is another conversation) there are always those that will say "typical Cleveland shooting for pie in the sky."  Yet when the city doesn't do anything they sh!t on the city for not trying to improve itself.  Whatever clvdr, the conversation on this should be occuring, and should stay in the dialogue about the city.

I totally agree.

The land north of Browns stadium might be developed sooner since the city already owns it. Most of the port buildings at this location are vacant. No private property owner needs to be dislocated.

 

baseballmn907 & clvlndr, I ask you to learn about the federal project planning development process before shooting from the hip. The public sector process is slow not due to one political party being in power or another. Nor does it have to do with this being a "Cleveland problem." This takes a long time no matter where in America you are. You just don't see it because you're not intimately involved in a project. Some of you see a big project being built in another city and get jealous, wondering how it just suddenly appeared there. But you don't know that they had to go over the same hurdles that we do and which take decades to clear. It's not just Cleveland projects.

 

When federal funds are used for any construction project, the National Environmental Policy Act comes into play no matter where in the U.S. the project is built. This law was passed in the late-1960s and was expanded since. It was passed in response to abuses by federal highway projects being built through low-income/minority neighborhoods when no other alternatives were considered.

 

The typical time required for federally funded projects to proceed through the NEPA planning process is 10 years and that's assuming all the funding can be found right away for each planning step. Each step (alternatives analysis, environmental impact statement, preliminary engineering, final engineering) can cost millions, depending on how big the project is and how much dislocation of existing property owners may be required.

 

Add to this the time and expense of building a new port, which must meet U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' requirements. They have fiscal and regulatory control over all port and navigable waterway channels and facilities in the U.S. The thought is to build the new port site out of river dredgings because it provides "fill dirt" in a confinded disposal facility (CDF) paid for by federal funds. The Corps of Engineers requires that such a CDF have a capacity of at least 20 years, or at least is part of 20-year dredgings management plan in order for it to qualify for federal funds. I believe some CDFs can be shorter in period, but would qualify for fewer federal funds, such as a 50 percent federal share for project expenses in a 10-15 year CDF vs. a 20-30 year CDF that might qualify for an 80 percent federal share. That's a broad brush, but that's generally how it works.

 

Why go through all of this? Because if you want to build a big transportation infrastructure project costing hundreds of millions of dollars and which inherently has little or no profit potential, the federal government is usually the only source that has enough money to afford it. So you trade time for money. If you don't want to wait, get the local or state taxpayers to pay for it, or see if you can find a private investor willing to pay the bills. Good luck!

^ 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.

 

5-7 years?  You're speaking from experience, right? :roll:

^ 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.

 

5-7 years? You're speaking from experience, right? :roll:

 

Zero experience, just understand that you must work with a sense of urgency in the private sector.  You don't stay current, you get blown away and wonder what happened to your job.  Wish there was some sort of urgency, which there seems to never be in the (Cleveland) public sector.  The lakefront is the future, we've known it forever, and nothing has been changed in half a century with the port, burke lakefront, etc.  Stop dragging your feet and get something done.

^Apparently KJP's lengthy, thoughtful and rational post did not register very well with you.  By the way... private sector, sense of urgency...please.

^Apparently KJP's lengthy, thoughtful and rational post did not register very well with you.  By the way... private sector, sense of urgency...please.

 

^Apparently KJP's lengthy, thoughtful and rational post did not register very well with you.  By the way... private sector, sense of urgency...please.

 

It was a thoughtful response, but it also reeked of someone living in Cleveland for so long that they've swallowed the kool-aid one too many times in regards to "well, there are legitimate reasons why this takes a long time".

 

There are plenty of other urban redevelopment projects that have gone from 0 to completely built in 10 years and many other federal/state projects right here in Ohio that I have been a part of and witnessed completion in less time, including the purchase, planning, design, reconsturction of a marina, ferry dock, and airport...actually 2 airports.  I've seen delays due to waiting out birth cycles for Bald Eagles to breed natuarally before building on land, extensive efforts to preserve Lake Erie Water Snakes (on the endageered species list), and even hold ups for marinas to pass fire codes (you know, that are built on and surrounded by water)...and yet the job got done in under 10 years.

 

In Cleveland nothing has been done, and certainly nothing in 10 years, regarding our lakefront development.  Why?  Crappy leaders.  I don't really understand how any reasonable person can make any argument against this.  Find some public leaders motivated to get this done and it gets done.  Period.  Anything else is just an excuse.

^Apparently KJP's lengthy, thoughtful and rational post did not register very well with you.  By the way... private sector, sense of urgency...please.

 

It was a thoughtful response, but it also reeked of someone living in Cleveland for so long that they've swallowed the kool-aid one too many times in regards to "well, there are legitimate reasons why this takes a long time".

 

There are plenty of other urban redevelopment projects that have gone from 0 to completely built in 10 years and many other federal/state projects right here in Ohio that I have been a part of and witnessed completion in less time, including the purchase, planning, design, reconsturction of a marina, ferry dock, and airport...actually 2 airports.  I've seen delays due to waiting out birth cycles for Bald Eagles to breed natuarally before building on land, extensive efforts to preserve Lake Erie Water Snakes (on the endageered species list), and even hold ups for marinas to pass fire codes (you know, that are built on and surrounded by water)...and yet the job got done in under 10 years.

 

In Cleveland nothing has been done, and certainly nothing in 10 years, regarding our lakefront development.  Why?  Crappy leaders.  I don't really understand how any reasonable person can make any argument against this.  Find some public leaders motivated to get this done and it gets done.  Period.  Anything else is just an excuse.

 

Are you f*ck*n serious?  Look at all the entities involved with our WORKING lakefront and then tell me its blame is placed on our leaders.

Find some public leaders motivated to get this done and it gets done.  Period.  Anything else is just an excuse.

 

Exactly.

It was a thoughtful response, but it also reeked of someone living in Cleveland for so long that they've swallowed the kool-aid one too many times in regards to "well, there are legitimate reasons why this takes a long time".

 

 

The Kool Aid I drink based on nationwide ingredients mixed with federal funding policy. I could rattle off big projects in other cities that have taken a long, long time because of the number of players involved, the fact that federal funding is involved and that federal planning rules have changed a lot in the last 10-15 years ago, requiring that some planning steps be duplicated.

 

These include the repairing of locks and dams on the Ohio, Mississippi and Missouri rivers; the Dulles Metro Rail extension, the Second Avenue subway, widening/deepening of the Welland Canal and the St. Lawrence Seaway, the linking of airports in greater New York City and Toronto to their otherwise extensive rail systems, construction of a third airport in Chicago, etc. etc. etc. That's a very small list off the top of my head. All of these projects have been talked about for decades. Some are done or underway, partially or in whole.

 

Sometimes a project gets hit by lighting and is advanced very quickly. But it's the exception; not the rule.

I think the implication is that all these planning stages require initial work on this end, the local end, and that work isn't always getting done in a vigorous and timely fashion.  Look what happened with CSU and the state tech lab opportunity they squandered.  I'm sure the federal requirements are the same for us and everyone else... but if that's the case, how come we're barely getting the innerbelt redone when other communities are getting rail expansions?  Whatever the excuse, we're not getting a fair share and we haven't been for years.  Either that's discrimination from DC or its a failure of local leadership.  Either way, it's not OK.

 

Here comes this giant stimulus package and we have no rail expansions ready to go, not even that rather obvious one that would run east from our present and future Lakefront Developments.  We have no plan for a new Amtrak station on the lakefront despite the MM/CC and despite the 3-C momentum.  That is inexcusable, absolutely inexcusable.  The time for patience with local leadership has passed.

KJP is right, but so is 327.  There are a lot of hoops to jump through, but as we all know there tends to be a poor and disfunctional/cooperative relationship between the various entities,(developers, council people, city govt., county officials, your local reps in washington etc).  Seldom do they all work together to facilitate things that are often of vital importance to the region.  I have seen some of what 327 is talking about first hand when I got to speak to some "city officials" that are in the "field" and "office" to be thinking about such things.  When I mentioned some of the things such as what 327 is talking about, they looked at me like I was an alien and as if it had never occurred to them to think in such terms, or ahead in such a manner, or in a way that could result in some great possibilities down the road if they started the process of laying the groundwork now (you know, in a way that could get the ball rolling, and allow them to apply for funding that is often available in one form or another). They also didn't seem to understand why it was bad to not be on better terms with the officials mentioned above... as in "working together towards some common and beneficial goals". 

 

Funny I did get a bit of a sense that there was some "kool aid drinking" going on when they argued for every move Frank has made and applauded everything about the MM/convention center fiasco (they seemed to lack any regard to decisions that would have actually been best for the city, or the poor impact that they had on the city down the road (I had to explain these things to them, even though these things were supposed to be they're field of expertise)  This is when I realized they needed somebody from the outside to come in and shake things up......  Starting with the Mayor... 

^ Absolutely.

 

This isn't negativity, and I'm sorry if it's been mistaken as such.  This is excitement for the future and urgency for what needs to be done.  The potential of this city and the lack of exploiting is tough to stomach each and every day.

Would you people ever accept a long term planning process?  Does everything we do have to be done in ten years?

wow... this seems to be strolling quite a bit off topic when bringing up things from the innerbelt to rail expansion.  Let's please try to stick directly to the Lakefront Development.

 

I'm a little surprised people think this should be happening so quickly.  From everything I've READ, the proposed development is going to take 20-30 years because the WORKING port has to move before development can take place, and according to the army corp of engineers that is about how long it is going to take to build the new port land out of river dredgings.  The move will take place in phases so development will take place in phases over that time, no one is saying there won't be any development until 20 or 30 years from now.  I also READ, that the federal government would pay about 75% of this cost.  The total cost of building the land and creating the new port is estimated at $500 million dollars.  I don't believe the port has that money laying around, and I'm quite certain the city with the ever dwindling tax base doesn't have it laying around... so if we want it to be primarily financed by the feds we're going to have to be patient.  If anyone knows someone with a spare half a billion dollars or more that is willing to give it to the port and city, please let them know... that would probably speed things up a bit.

 

Additionally... if we developed 100 acres, which is somewhere in the neighborhood of a quarter to a third of all of downtown, all at once, it would be a nightmare.  There is no way there would be enough demand to get all this done at once.  Phasing this in over time is actually a pretty good thing.

Everything that is done IS done in 10 years.

Additionally... if we developed 100 acres, which is somewhere in the neighborhood of a quarter to a third of all of downtown, all at once, it would be a nightmare. There is no way there would be enough demand to get all this done at once. Phasing this in over time is actually a pretty good thing.

 

So long as it is actually phasing and not putting on the back burner to address whenever.  That is a good point though, where is the land again the city owns?  North of Browns Stadium?  Obviously a great place to start.

Certainly the Port is a bit of an exception and shouldnt be expected to be all done quickly.  As you said, many of the other aspects of it certainly could and should happen ahead of the actual port move (land that is not currently occupied by anything).

I think the discussion of the lakefront may have been lumped together with things we would all want to see happen in our lifetime and maybe unfairly gets lumped together with our frustrations of wanting to see these things happen.....     

So long as you don't interpret waiting for land to open up as "putting on the back burner" I don't think you'll be disappointed.

In related news, I went to a lecture at MoCA on friday night by a design studio called Metrogramma out of Milan, Italy.

 

http://www.metrogramma.com/

 

They are teaching a studio at the Kent State CUDC downtown mext year, and these guys are on top of their game.  They do a lot of masterplanning and reconceptualizing of urban centers throughout the world, and have taken an interest in Cleveland.  Throughout the lecture they talked about tranforming parts of cities that have negative conotations into city assets through architecture and landscape implementations.  Basically providing a different lens with which to view the city.  What can be done with the inbetween void spaces that exist within the city and how can contemporary design expose these opportunites.

In the end it was interesting to see how people from outside this region or even our country view Cleveland, and they are extremely intrigued by the possibilities, and look to be doing their own research on the city/region.  However, in the context of the lakefront, they are the second group of well respected European architects that have come into Cleveland, knowing nothing of the city previously, and were adamant that the Cuyahoga River and surounding valley is what sets this city apart from the world.  Not the lakefront.

Several reasons align with this thinking from relationship to human scale, available void space, location at the center of the city/region, historical relavance as the reason this city exists, and if we can reimage the thing that normally divides us as a city and was at one time a national embarrassment (burning river) it would probably change a lot of minds when thinking of the city.

And, just for fun, they created some imagery of for the closing of the lecture (there was also an aerial view of the river valley from north of E55th looking towards the city at night which I don't have a picture of, but trust me it was pretty sweet).  Enjoy, and look forward to hearing what else comes up from this firm.

So long as it is actually phasing and not putting on the back burner to address whenever.  That is a good point though, where is the land again the city owns?  North of Browns Stadium?  Obviously a great place to start.

 

Yes, the city-owned land is north of Browns stadium, including the parking areas and old port warehouses. It extends from the waterway into North Coast Harbor west to West 3rd Street (if you extended it north to the water).

In all this planning has there been any in depth discussions as to where the $$$ is going to come from for the public sector improvements once the port does move?  Maybe this has been gone over above but I don't recall, other than possible funding sources for the port relocation.

Thanks for the info W.28th!

 

I get what they are saying about the river, but that is not to say we can't walk and chew gum at the same time.  Lets do both!

 

In regards to the interest from outside of the region and country, I wonder if Cleveland is considered the worn down house on a good block.  A gem that just needs a good re-hab.

 

(can you tell I have been house hunting)

In all this planning has there been any in depth discussions as to where the $$$ is going to come from for the public sector improvements once the port does move?  Maybe this has been gone over above but I don't recall, other than possible funding sources for the port relocation.

 

What kind of property taxes does the port pay?  The answer would start here.  If new development could increase the tax base, those increased revenues could be used to retire bonds.  This also works well if you're building something that has entrance fees, like a stadium.  Private industrial stuff tends to pay a lot of taxes, so if there's a significant amount of that stuff to be replaced with low-revenue residential, the TIF format may not work so well.

 

Anyway, the city or county or state would finance the project with bonds tied to these income streams.  Ohio and its subdivisions cannot assist private enterprise with financing tied to their general taxing authority.  Our constitution doesn't allow it.  So the trick is to identify specific revenue streams that both investors and courts find credible. 

 

The federal government has a lot more leeway.  To get at that money, our DC representation must first recognize the need and then ask for the money.  That's how that works.  Of course there are then layers of studies which must be performed, but first and foremost it's a political issue.  We need to hear our leaders talking about these projects.

as 327 indicates there are a lot of different ways to "skin that cat"... one would think that if federal and state funds are often used to build roads and infastructure in far flung exurbia... that we should be able to find a way to get some substantial help with new infastructure downtown.

 

regardless of how they fund it, it's going to be outrageously expensive... which is another reason it is not so bad that it will be rolled out over time.

This lakefront plan needs to move ahead quickly.  I also agree with the consultants who note that our riverfront is cooler than our lakefront.  But as for the lakefront, all we've done in the past decade is tacitly reject the Campbell plan, however much that cost, and hire another group to do another painstakingly vague rendering.  I'd like to believe the PBS article from the last page, but I don't see where we're any closer to building on the land around the stadium.  We have yet to see any clear rendering for what goes there.  We have a general idea that some sort of water feature will be involved.  Great. 

 

EDIT:  I removed two sentences about [that other city].

 

Alright folks - thanks again for giving me the opportunity to waste a few minutes of my life pruning this thread of completely irrelevant posts. I would think that educated adults could at least make a nominal effort to abide by the standing rule that threads need to stay on topic - I've been proven wrong by several participants in this thread. If your post was pruned - consider this a warning.

 

As has been explained to so many, on so many occasions - it isn't JUST your off-topic post; it's the fact that others undoubtedly pile on to whatever tangent you're on, and take the thread even further off course. And that takes up more time of the Admins/Mods - who aren't paid for their time/service.

 

Is it easy to agree with, or respect other forumers? No. Is it easy to keep your cool when presenting a contrarian viewpoint? No. However, thinking about whether something you're about to post is on or off topic? *That's* pretty easy to figure out. Sure, there's a little wiggle room but in a thread about Lakefront Development in Cleveland - we had people discussing US Airways, Pittsburgh's light rail, built and unbuilt subways, Prada shoes... :roll:

 

Again - this forum is often cited as one of THE best sites for information about Ohio cities, and is further validated by the participation and presence of many respected people in the industry. If you respect that; if you value that, you need to realize that it hasn't happened by Admins/Mods just letting threads run rampant with whatever tangent that someone's fleeting thought had inspired. The Admins and Mods of UrbanOhio.com have (collectively) dozens of years of experience moderating online forums - we know what works, we know what will ruin a forum overnight, and we know what needs to be done to keep this forum going as well as it has. The alternative is for us to just say to hell with it, let people talk about whatever and then you'll have cleveland.com, part 2.

 

Now - the thread topic is "Cleveland: Lakefront Development News". Discuss. There will be repercussions if you cannot abide by the common sense rules.

This was in this past sunday's paper..OPINION section:

 

 

Bending with the elements along the Lake Erie shore

by Joe Frolik

Sunday July 19, 2009, 8:00 PM

 

 

NEWS STORY DELETED...no link

There were also two response in Today's paper...I like the first one:

 

 

Cleveland's lakefront shows signs of life beyond downtown

Posted by Elva Brodnick, Eastlake July 24, 2009 04:05AM

Categories: Letters

 

I found Joe Frolik's column Sunday to be interesting because it appears he thinks that if it isn't happening downtown on Cleveland's lakefront, then nothing's happening on Cleveland's lakefront.

 

I beg to differ.

 

More fromhttp://blog.cleveland.com/letters/2009/07/clevelands_lakefront_shows_sig.html

 

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

 

This second one...blah

 

Cleveland's lakefront should be a priority and a draw

Posted by Kerry McCormack, Cleveland July 24, 2009 04:05AM

Categories: Letters

 

After reading Joe Frolik's article on lakefront development in Cleveland, I sighed with relief, knowing that someone else in Cleveland is thinking about our lakefront possibilities. As a young Clevelander, going into my senior year at Miami University, I have a heartfelt connection to the city I love, as well as an excited spirit about its potential future. Unfortunately, our city seems to have stopped at potential.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/letters/2009/07/clevelands_lakefront_should_be.html

^ I had to check the author to make sure I didn't write this article.  Exactly my thinking on the lakefront and experiences at Miami.

uhg.. Kerry McCormack just made me a little depressed.

In related news, I went to a lecture at MoCA on friday night by a design studio called Metrogramma out of Milan, Italy.

http://www.metrogramma.com/

 

I used to be against the idea of out of towners being used for these development projects since I believe we have capable companies here.  However, now I think having people that don't know all the Cleveland "baggage" being able to look at the city with a fresh perspective is a great way to go.

I have to say it's depressing to read something like what this McCormack person wrote but not because of the message (I mean like did she think she was saying something new?) but because it's completely irritating to hear college grads like her be so uninspiring. I mean if you're going to base where you live because the waterfront area has not been developed and you have possible issues with local leadership then good riddance in my opinion. Cleveland needs people who want change and are willing to be involved to make that change happen. I work with a lot of college age people and I'm constantly amazed at how they want to be somewhere that is a place ready made for them to have this fabulous life versus becoming part of the community and adding to it knowing the good and bad. Without getting into a bit$CH fight over other cities issues, I mean please, NY doesn't have problems that compare to our water front problem? Of course they do but people tend to over look these and find what is good and you can do exactly that with Cleveland. I know I'm ranting but the type of drivel coming from people like her is exhausting, along with the rags that print it.

I have to say it's depressing to read something like what this McCormack person wrote but not because of the message (I mean like did she think she was saying something new?) but because it's completely irritating to hear college grads like her be so uninspiring. I mean if you're going to base where you live because the waterfront area has not been developed and you have possible issues with local leadership then good riddance in my opinion. Cleveland needs people who want change and are willing to be involved to make that change happen. I work with a lot of college age people and I'm constantly amazed at how they want to be somewhere that is a place ready made for them to have this fabulous life versus becoming part of the community and adding to it knowing the good and bad. Without getting into a bit$CH fight over other cities issues, I mean please, NY doesn't have problems that compare to our water front problem? Of course they do but people tend to over look these and find what is good and you can do exactly that with Cleveland. I know I'm ranting but the type of drivel coming from people like her is exhausting, along with the rags that print it.

 

I couldn't agree more.  Get involved.  Assume nothing will change unless you make it change, or, at least, recognize that nothing is gained/accomplished through passive observance. 

 

I could go on, but I will not veer further off topic.

I also get endlessly annoyed by the "if some city leader would just click their heals together three times and want it bad enough" presto, insta development.  Cities can plan, they can try to drum up interest, and offer incentives, provide infastructure... but the bottom line is, at the end of the day, the private sector is responsible for making the investment.  Period.

 

I should add the port HAS to move to develop this.  The port wants to move, the city supports them, they are doing their best to plan for the land, and as the port transitions out they will work their tail off to find investors (of all types) to step in and create the environment they imagined.  There isn't a whole lot more the "leaders" can do.  Up to this point the lakefront hasn't been able to be developed because there has been a giant working port sitting on it.

I guess I think most people want things laid out for them. Maybe not everything, but most things. I mean, if I'm not in development but instead in widget making, why do I want to spend my time working to get development done so I can make widgets here vs just heading off to NY, or Chicago or some other town that already has a widget section of town ready to go?

 

A better argument for Kerry is to show what Cleveland has to offer and play on that. You have to sell what you have in place before selling the future. The lakefront has some pretty great spots that are either open to the pubic already or are available for not such an extravagant price.. Start there and it will build.. at least I'd hope.

I would have to assume that Kerry McCormack hasn't taken the time to actually discover what Cleveland has to offer (besides downtown, obviously).  Not everyone is as into urban neighborhoods as we; but once again, our own local population is our own worst enemy.  Here is a college student telling other college students that Cleveland should just be ignored, because the downtown lakefront is lacking.  The vast amount of land we have on our lakefront which is ripe for development is a blessing (at least in my eyes), and a curse (in the eyes of others).  I would love to have a developed, functioning lakefront tomorrow, but we have one shot at this.  It should be done right.

I have to say it's depressing to read something like what this McCormack person wrote but not because of the message (I mean like did she think she was saying something new?) but because it's completely irritating to hear college grads like her be so uninspiring. I mean if you're going to base where you live because the waterfront area has not been developed and you have possible issues with local leadership then good riddance in my opinion. Cleveland needs people who want change and are willing to be involved to make that change happen. I work with a lot of college age people and I'm constantly amazed at how they want to be somewhere that is a place ready made for them to have this fabulous life versus becoming part of the community and adding to it knowing the good and bad. Without getting into a bit$CH fight over other cities issues, I mean please, NY doesn't have problems that compare to our water front problem? Of course they do but people tend to over look these and find what is good and you can do exactly that with Cleveland. I know I'm ranting but the type of drivel coming from people like her is exhausting, along with the rags that print it.

 

Regardless of how frustrated you are about what she said, it's the truth.  I saw it for four years.  So what do we do about it?  Complain? Ostricize an entire demograph essential to our redevelopment?  We (recent grads) can bring new ideas, new business and new culture to the city.  If Cleveland doesn't want it, I'm sure Chicago, New York, hell, even Pittsburgh would take them.

I have to say it's depressing to read something like what this McCormack person wrote but not because of the message (I mean like did she think she was saying something new?) but because it's completely irritating to hear college grads like her be so uninspiring. I mean if you're going to base where you live because the waterfront area has not been developed and you have possible issues with local leadership then good riddance in my opinion. Cleveland needs people who want change and are willing to be involved to make that change happen. I work with a lot of college age people and I'm constantly amazed at how they want to be somewhere that is a place ready made for them to have this fabulous life versus becoming part of the community and adding to it knowing the good and bad. Without getting into a bit$CH fight over other cities issues, I mean please, NY doesn't have problems that compare to our water front problem? Of course they do but people tend to over look these and find what is good and you can do exactly that with Cleveland. I know I'm ranting but the type of drivel coming from people like her is exhausting, along with the rags that print it.

 

Regardless of how frustrated you are about what she said, it's the truth.  I saw it for four years.  So what do we do about it?  Complain? Ostricize an entire demograph essential to our redevelopment?  We (recent grads) can bring new ideas, new business and new culture to the city.  If Cleveland doesn't want it, I'm sure Chicago, New York, hell, even Pittsburgh would take them.

 

Thats a good question, what are you doing?

I'm not sure if that was sarcasm, but I plan to work, save and invest in Cleveland in the future.  How and with what?  Not sure yet, but I do know that's why I get up and go to work in the morning.

Regardless of how frustrated you are about what she said, it's the truth.  I saw it for four years.  So what do we do about it?  Complain? Ostricize an entire demograph essential to our redevelopment?  We (recent grads) can bring new ideas, new business and new culture to the city.  If Cleveland doesn't want it, I'm sure Chicago, New York, hell, even Pittsburgh would take them

 

Believe me I'm not frustrated, it's more I'm just sick of hearing dung like this. You're right, I want recent grads to bring exactly what you say they can bring, and not focus on the things that are wrong and then use those few things as the reason they won't live somewhere??!! I just don't see the logic or reason in that. I live in San Francisco and believe me this place is great but with lots and lots of problems. I can think of a ton of reasons why I shouldn't live here. My God it's taken over 20 years to get the Bay Bridge repaired and it will take another 10 but should I use that as the reason to blast local leadership and move to San Diego? Cleveland has issues like all cities but people need to start giving this city, and all the amazing people who are making change, a break for once. I would rather have two college grads who were passionate about their city and its future than a dozen who think just because they are someplace it's fabulous.