Thats a good question, what are you doing?

 

BINGO!

This article is in today's Plain Dealer:

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2009/08/clevelandcuyahoga_county_port.html

 

Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority unveils makeover plan for lakefront

by Olivera Perkins / Plain Dealer Reporter

Thursday August 13, 2009, 9:34 PM

 

The Cleveland waterfront could be transformed by 2013 into a year-round playground of recreation, restaurants and open space, according to concepts unveiled Thursday, Aug. 13, at a Cleveland Waterfront Development Project meeting.

 

Jill Akins, principal of Van Auken Akins Architects LLC, unveiled the outline of the first phase of the lakefront plan, which could start in 2011. The first phase would cover the lakefront from the Steamship William G. Mather Museum in North Coast Harbor to the 50-yard line at Cleveland Browns Stadium.

 

The concept included Crystal Square, which would be built behind the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and feature a pavilion with glass structures facing the water. In the winter, its doors would close to shield people from the harsh winds and cold while still providing a view of the lake. Streets would also be designed to turn the area into a four-season playground. Roads would jog, instead of being built on a straight grid, to block frequent and strong winds...

 

 

Here's to wishing! :-D

Were there any images in the article in the paper?  The article online did not have any.

No there were no images online or in the paper. :-(

Great news... hopefully some renderings will be released soon.

Most of what is talked about in the article is in the PDF presented 7-7-09.

 

http://www.portofcleveland.com/assets/attachments/file/090709_Cleveland_Public_Presentation.pdf

I like it. I think this street grid plan makes more sense than Stark's which didn't take the winter winds into account.

A great comment in the comment section:

 

Posted by cleveland197 on 08/14/09 at 9:16AM

There is only ONE thing I see missing from this plan and I'm totally blown away they didn't include it!!! Makes me so furious...!!

 

Nowhere in the plan does it call for a large storage facility under the lake to house the negative naysayers from these Cleveland.com bulletin boards. Earlier plans called for a complete mock-up of the Cleveland area that will never change... sort of a theater stage. The naysayers will get to walk around and comment about how bad it is... and the best part? It will always be like that! They'll never get to see the outside world -- the Cleveland that is trying to improve itself and the people who are trying to do it.

 

Unfortunately the Subterranean Naysayer Bunker must have been nixed from final plans... bummer!

 

cah55, welcome aboard and thank you for posting the PD article! Please add the source link for articles when posting them. I added the link to your post to show what should be included, FYI.

A great comment in the comment section:

 

Posted by cleveland197 on 08/14/09 at 9:16AM

There is only ONE thing I see missing from this plan and I'm totally blown away they didn't include it!!! Makes me so furious...!!

 

Nowhere in the plan does it call for a large storage facility under the lake to house the negative naysayers from these Cleveland.com bulletin boards. Earlier plans called for a complete mock-up of the Cleveland area that will never change... sort of a theater stage. The naysayers will get to walk around and comment about how bad it is... and the best part? It will always be like that! They'll never get to see the outside world -- the Cleveland that is trying to improve itself and the people who are trying to do it.

 

Unfortunately the Subterranean Naysayer Bunker must have been nixed from final plans... bummer!

 

 

I saw that and thought it was awesome. Of course, we could save money from building that bunker by just telling all of these worthless dorks to go jump in the lake.

A great comment in the comment section:

 

Posted by cleveland197 on 08/14/09 at 9:16AM

There is only ONE thing I see missing from this plan and I'm totally blown away they didn't include it!!! Makes me so furious...!!

 

Nowhere in the plan does it call for a large storage facility under the lake to house the negative naysayers from these Cleveland.com bulletin boards. Earlier plans called for a complete mock-up of the Cleveland area that will never change... sort of a theater stage. The naysayers will get to walk around and comment about how bad it is... and the best part? It will always be like that! They'll never get to see the outside world -- the Cleveland that is trying to improve itself and the people who are trying to do it.

 

Unfortunately the Subterranean Naysayer Bunker must have been nixed from final plans... bummer!

 

 

That's excellent!  I love it!

Thanks for posting.....don't know how I missed this earlier.

 

Great job using Baltimore, Old Alexandria, etc. as model concepts.

(now if we can only see Fells Point, Baltimore as a model for what's left of the Flats)

 

Very exciting to consider all of the possibilities!!!!

 

Most of what is talked about in the article is in the PDF presented 7-7-09.

 

http://www.portofcleveland.com/assets/attachments/file/090709_Cleveland_Public_Presentation.pdf

I like the grid pattern as well. I also like the fact that they don't ignore that we live in a somewhat tough climate. It sometimes takes an outsider to recognize what we often ignore. Now if they can just drop the TransportationCenter into its rightful place, were in business.

It's bothersome that they only looked at their own projects for precedence...

And while they're analysis with the shifted grid to block winds is interested, they seen to have ignored it in the final solution in this design phase.

Also, while this clearly wasn't in their scope, the transition from the city to the lakefront is really the problem that needs to be addressed.  A lakefront plan that ignores or is afraid to tackle that issue isn't looking at the big picture, in my opinion.

Say what you will about Zaha Hadid's design of individual buildings (X), this project in Spain has a density that I think we should be shooting for.  A quick look at the street widths in the port's plan reveal avenues that are simply too wide.  Tight streets, something this city is not known for, should be part of an all encompassing idea of creating greater density, and then release to the vista of the lakefront.

Also, while this clearly wasn't in their scope, the transition from the city to the lakefront is really the problem that needs to be addressed.  A lakefront plan that ignores or is afraid to tackle that issue isn't looking at the big picture, in my opinion.

 

My thought also. I still see that large scar between the two. But until we can redirect the train traffic it will be tough to solve. I think KJP has pointed out that the tracks cannot be capped because of the bio frieght that runs thru there. Although as I mentioned in another post, I believe the much discussed Transportation Center would go along way in filling that void. To me the main gateway to the lakefront could from the mall.

to me what is missing from the plans is high rise. look at lakewood, euclid areas. cut this 3-4 story bull. the market for it is there. that kind of scale is what is desired on a lakefront if you ask me. just an opinion.. it also could be more dense like you guys are saying. boulevards through 3-4 story buildings is not the kind of development cleveland should be shooting for. wide sidewalks with tight lanes and at least 10 story buildings. all with sunrise and sunset views, or bustling city streets.

 

 

to me what is missing from the plans is high rise. look at lakewood, euclid areas. cut this 3-4 story bull. the market for it is there. that kind of scale is what is desired on a lakefront if you ask me. just an opinion.. it also could be more dense like you guys are saying. boulevards through 3-4 story buildings is not the kind of development cleveland should be shooting for. wide sidewalks with tight lanes and at least 10 story buildings. all with sunrise and sunset views, or bustling city streets.

 

 

 

Stats please.

Some massing models from the presentation:

 

 

 

 

Scav, I'd be inclined to agree if it weren't for the fact that a high-rise at that location would be directly in the flight paths at Burke.

to me what is missing from the plans is high rise. look at lakewood, euclid areas. cut this 3-4 story bull. the market for it is there. that kind of scale is what is desired on a lakefront if you ask me. just an opinion.. it also could be more dense like you guys are saying. boulevards through 3-4 story buildings is not the kind of development cleveland should be shooting for. wide sidewalks with tight lanes and at least 10 story buildings. all with sunrise and sunset views, or bustling city streets.

 

 

 

Stats please.

 

like i said, look at lakewood and the other high rise developments on the lake. they are doing well.

 

SWEET massing models. like i said i would like some taller buildings, but these look really great for the size they are. i see the half-circle park right outside browns stadium. thats perfect.

 

the design/planning has really come a long way.

I think high-rises also would create wind tunnels that would make the area very uncomfortable in the winter.

 

What is that odd-shaped structure in the rendering just next to stern of the Mather?

Some massing models from the presentation:

 

 

 

 

Scav, I'd be inclined to agree if it weren't for the fact that a high-rise at that location would be directly in the flight paths at Burke.

 

The flight path is exactly where I was going and on the lake right there putting high rises would dwarf the stadium. 

 

Now High rise building from East 9 to the innner belt on Hamilton, Lakeside and St. Clair would be much more desirable.  As would they be West 6 going west.

 

Nobody wants to move into a downtown highrise more than I do.

Scav,

 

I wouldn't used Lakewood as a comparable model. You can easily find condos for sale on Lakewood's gold coast that cost $40,000. Granted, those units are very small and not updated. Still, it is a different product.

 

As MayDay pointed out, you can't put high rises in this location because of the flight paths from Burke.

What is that odd-shaped structure in the rendering just next to stern of the Mather?

 

I believe the presentation described it as a glass enclosed building - presumably for retail/tourist uses.

 

Also looks like there are covered walkways from RRHOF->GLSC->Mather.  I think these were refernaced in the presentation as well, or at least that during winter it would be nice.  And I do think that it would be a great way to expand the use of the attractions in the winter months.  It may not take away the wind, but some walkways not covered by dirty snow would be nice.

Scav,

 

I wouldn't used Lakewood as a comparable model. You can easily find condos for sale on Lakewood's gold coast that cost $40,000. Granted, those units are very small and not updated. Still, it is a different product.

 

As MayDay pointed out, you can't put high rises in this location because of the flight paths from Burke.

 

yea i guess its more of a pipe dream. imho its a great location for highrise but burke has a LOT of control over built form in that area.. burke forced the rock hall and science center to be white!

 

i guess the highrise in bratenahl is a better example, though its not very numerous.

 

either way, that idea is right out lol

 

tedders, i agree that the covered walkways look great and could help a lot. they create certain boundaries that i myself wouldnt want to create but they could work in certain areas, and i think they chose a good area for just that.

I realize that it is just a rendering/massing, but doesn't that covered walkway plow right over the fire fighters' memorial?

^

Unless the walkways are enclosed (which would be a bad idea), the dirty snow will find a way into the path.  So will rain and dirt.  Having said that, the walkways are great idea and the use of yellow, orange/red and purple for the glass structures/walkways is a great idea as well.  Colors add life.

 

The only thing that worries me about this presentation is that massive "P" for existing parking.  I hope they figure out a way to introduce some sort of mixed-use component to that.

^

The only thing that worries me about this presentation is that massive "P" for existing parking. I hope they figure out a way to introduce some sort of mixed-use component to that.

 

Right now, there is a nice and very underused green space on top of that parking.  It's not retail or residential, but it is "mixed use"

 

I would leave it as is.

I can't think of a bigger waste of money and worse idea than covered walkways connecting downtown to the lakefront, open to the elements or not.

I think the walkway has been discussed before. Same one right?

 

Great Lakes Science Center Gets $1M To Build Walkway

Walkway To Connect Center To William H. Mather Museum

 

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.

^ No, not the same. The walkway mentioned in the article you quoted is just from the GLSC to the Mather. In the models in the pics above, the walkways extend to the Mall, the RRHOF and Voinevich Park.

Here's some interesting reading:

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2009/082009/LakefrontDevelopmentStrategyCommunityPresentation.pdf

Here's some interesting reading:

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2009/082009/LakefrontDevelopmentStrategyCommunityPresentation.pdf

 

Very interesting read indeed!

 

But what is this "proposed new warehouse" ?????????  Page 52

Here's some interesting reading:

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2009/082009/LakefrontDevelopmentStrategyCommunityPresentation.pdf

 

Very interesting read indeed!

 

But what is this "proposed new warehouse" ????????? Page 52

 

Isnt that what they wanted to build for a new "wind mill assembling" facility...

^They're wind TURBINES!  :bang:

 

Sorry, but it grinds my gears when I hear "wind mill" instead of wind turbine.  A mill grinds something, a turbine rotates to create electricity.

 

Thank you.

 

^They're wind TURBINES!  :bang:

 

Sorry, but it grinds my gears when I hear "wind mill" instead of wind turbine.  A mill grinds something, a turbine rotates to create electricity.

 

Thank you.

 

I fixed that for you!

 

This is my favorite image from the plan.  Why? Because it reinforces our connection to the water.  I wonder if it could be constructed in a way that would be pleasing aesthetically but also function as a constructed wetland/stream to filter water run-off.  It does not appear to connect into the lake, so I'm unsure if this makes sense.

^ As a comparison, I was really struck with the canals Duisburg built relatively recently off of their inner harbor. Duisburg is another industrial city, working to convert its traditionally industrial waterway into a mixed-use community. I believe these canals were intended to add a water element to new construction in the blocks south of the harbor, as well as to address run-off and contaminant issues.

 

 

I realize that it is just a rendering/massing, but doesn't that covered walkway plow right over the fire fighters' memorial?

 

No. It's proposed to link the Great Lakes Science Center with an expanded parking deck at Erieside Avenue and Al Lerner Way. It would then go over Lerner Way into a future North Coast Transportation Center over the Shoreway and the tracks north of the malls. The NCTC would, in turn, connect with the new convention center below the malls.

The water feature IMO is a good idea, but I would hope it is a flowing system rather than a string of small ponds. Can you imagine the mosquito problem if the latter were true. Something more along the lines of the San Antonio Riverwalk would be my preference. It would be nice to see retail and restaurants right along the waters edge. They would just have to make in a way to support a Zamboni in the winter so folks can ice skate through the neighborhood; they can't do that in San Antonio. :-D

I realize that it is just a rendering/massing, but doesn't that covered walkway plow right over the fire fighters' memorial?

No. It's proposed to link the Great Lakes Science Center with an expanded parking deck at Erieside Avenue and Al Lerner Way. It would then go over Lerner Way into a future North Coast Transportation Center over the Shoreway and the tracks north of the malls. The NCTC would, in turn, connect with the new convention center below the malls.

 

I understand the concept, but take a look at the massings MayDay posted on the previous page.  The FF Memorial is right on the corner of Al Lerner Way and Erieside Ave.  The covered walkway looks like it goes right through the exact spot the memorial is located. 

 

EDIT:  OK, looking at the image more closely, I see a really faint indication of "statue" with a dotted line pointing to under the covered walkway.  They wouldn't really cover up that memorial, right?  I mean, I know it is ugly as hell but it still is a memorial.  What am I missing here?

The water feature IMO is a good idea, but I would hope it is a flowing system rather than a string of small ponds. Can you imagine the mosquito problem if the latter were true. Something more along the lines of the San Antonio Riverwalk would be my preference. It would be nice to see retail and restaurants right along the waters edge. They would just have to make in a way to support a Zamboni in the winter so folks can ice skate through the neighborhood; they can't do that in San Antonio. :-D

 

I've always wanted to "skate the river" like they do in the movie Mystery, Alaska!

With a real river and a lakefront close at hand I don't see the point of putting in a fake "natural" creek.

The water feature IMO is a good idea, but I would hope it is a flowing system rather than a string of small ponds. Can you imagine the mosquito problem if the latter were true. Something more along the lines of the San Antonio Riverwalk would be my preference. It would be nice to see retail and restaurants right along the waters edge. They would just have to make in a way to support a Zamboni in the winter so folks can ice skate through the neighborhood; they can't do that in San Antonio. :-D

 

Healthy wetlands actually reduce mosquito populations.

http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/reg/mosquitoes.pdf

 

That being said, I love the image of canals in the city, especially the idea of ice skating on one, ala Rideau in Ottawa.

^ i.e. I Heart Ottawa. One of my personal faves.

 

 

I understand the concept, but take a look at the massings MayDay posted on the previous page. The FF Memorial is right on the corner of Al Lerner Way and Erieside Ave. The covered walkway looks like it goes right through the exact spot the memorial is located.

 

EDIT: OK, looking at the image more closely, I see a really faint indication of "statue" with a dotted line pointing to under the covered walkway. They wouldn't really cover up that memorial, right? I mean, I know it is ugly as hell but it still is a memorial. What am I missing here?

 

Now I see what you're saying. I forgot about the statue at Erieside and Lerner Way.

 

I suppose the statue could always be moved. Heck, I think the only quadrant of Public Square that the Moses Cleaveland statue hasn't been on is the quadrant dominated by the Soldiers & Sailors Monument!

I understand the concept, but take a look at the massings MayDay posted on the previous page. The FF Memorial is right on the corner of Al Lerner Way and Erieside Ave. The covered walkway looks like it goes right through the exact spot the memorial is located.

 

EDIT: OK, looking at the image more closely, I see a really faint indication of "statue" with a dotted line pointing to under the covered walkway. They wouldn't really cover up that memorial, right? I mean, I know it is ugly as hell but it still is a memorial. What am I missing here?

 

Now I see what you're saying. I forgot about the statue at Erieside and Lerner Way.

 

I suppose the statue could always be moved. Heck, I think the only quadrant of Public Square that the Moses Cleaveland statue hasn't been on is the quadrant dominated by the Soldiers & Sailors Monument!

 

Is it possible that the statue stays and they just make the roof of the walkway high enough to accomodate it?

I would highly doubt that.  I don't think it would be a big deal to move the oversized action figures.

Well, it's not just the "action figures", they also put in a little plaza there.  For now (considering we are just at the conceptual stage), I will just assume that the walkway will jet out towards Al Lerner Way in the space between the memorial and the turbine.  I doubt putting a roof on the memorial is an option, no matter how ugly it is (FYI, the world-class sculptor hired to build the memorial died before the project was completed).

 

On the issue of adding a faux waterway to the port's land, I think the more water landscaping the better.  Although, I would like to see little pedestrian bridges every couple hundred yards or so.