Now that the Casino at TC is a go, along with the CC, the new train station, and the East Bank are all on their way, do you think it makes Phase 1 more or less likely to attract investors for development?

^I think there will ALWAYS be investors attracted to waterfront development.  ALWAYS.

I think that the northeast part of Burke would have been a good place to relocate to. That way we wouldn't have to wait for new land to be built and and the port could start the move right away. New land could be created anywhere from the dredging. If Burke wants to build another runway north of their existing runways, that's fine. Maybe we can create new land from the dredging to make room for that (and make Burke look a little less obviously man-made). Burke may have to wait a few more years to expand but I think quickly moving the port and opening the lakefront for development ASAP is more important than a new runway.

 

This is what I mean:

 

 

 

I've said this before and I'll say it again... what do we acomplish if the port up and moves tomorrow?  Nothing.  We can't develop 110 acres of lakefront all at once.  There is no way.  Thats tens of THOUSANDS of residnetial units, MILLIONS of square feet of office space.  and that's IF we could find a way to finance construction all at once (BILLIONS of $$$).  Face it.  Developing this land over the next 25 years IS the best way to go about things, even if it IS frustrating.  Look at it this way.  They have sectioned this off into 5 phases.  The first phase is to begin within about 3 years.  After that you are looking at a new development every 5 years.  That allows time to keep demand up and occupancy strong, all the whil ANTICIPATION continues for the next new phase.

I've said this before and I'll say it again... what do we acomplish if the port up and moves tomorrow?  Nothing.  We can't develop 110 acres of lakefront all at once.  There is no way.  Thats tens of THOUSANDS of residnetial units, MILLIONS of square feet of office space.  and that's IF we could find a way to finance construction all at once (BILLIONS of $$$).  Face it.  Developing this land over the next 25 years IS the best way to go about things, even if it IS frustrating.  Look at it this way.  They have sectioned this off into 5 phases.  The first phase is to begin within about 3 years.  After that you are looking at a new development every 5 years.  That allows time to keep demand up and occupancy strong, all the whil ANTICIPATION continues for the next new phase.

 

Mayor, you know these whippersnappers all want instant gratification. 

 

They don't think, or at least say/list, the behind the scenes preparations/negotiations that must take place before a ground breaking is scheduled.

I understand what you mean, McCleveland. I'd still like the Burke port over the East 55th one because it is further away from residential areas and the city wouldn't have to destroy any existing marinas and fishing docks.  The move could still take place in intervals of 5 years (or however much time is needed) regardless of where the port moves.  I just think the Burke site is the least intrusive of all of them. Also, I think it would be an asset to have one major port with air, water, and rail access, which is what Burke would essentially become if the port moved there.

And how do you suppose you will connect infastructure to your burke island?  What is the additional cost (it will be substantial), and how will it be funded?  Where do you look for spin off light industrial development (at 55th it's everywhere... it's the reason Mitch Schneider bought the abandoned White Motor Factory, it was listed as a reason the chinese investment firm is interested in the abandoned richman bros. factory).  what sort of infastructure will be required (once you gobble up this land for spin off) to link it towards the port? where is that money coming from?  Will the development of the port allow proper clearances for the air flight paths?

 

No one (or at least not many people) want a working port in their area of the lakefront, so people aren't ever going to agree on location... but on paper hands down way above the rest, the 55th site makes beyond the most sense.

Ladies and Gentleman, that is what I call a

 

And how do you suppose you will connect infastructure to your burke island?  What is the additional cost (it will be substantial), and how will it be funded?  Where do you look for spin off light industrial development (at 55th it's everywhere... it's the reason Mitch Schneider bought the abandoned White Motor Factory, it was listed as a reason the chinese investment firm is interested in the abandoned richman bros. factory).  what sort of infastructure will be required (once you gobble up this land for spin off) to link it towards the port? where is that money coming from?  Will the development of the port allow proper clearances for the air flight paths?

 

 

While I certainly agree with your general sentiments and "realty slap", I do think the 30 (more likely 50) year plan is TOO long.  If I had my druthers, the port would move tomorrow and the land would be available to let the chips fall as they may.  Who knows what kind of momentum would build up... plus, one thing I think people forget is that the port move is not only intended to allow lakefront development downtown but also make the port more efficient/useful/profitable/etc.

Does anyone get their druthers? If so, where do they buy them?  :-D

When it comes to lakefront development, I can't find them anywhere around these parts.

And how do you suppose you will connect infastructure to your burke island? What is the additional cost (it will be substantial), and how will it be funded? Where do you look for spin off light industrial development (at 55th it's everywhere... it's the reason Mitch Schneider bought the abandoned White Motor Factory, it was listed as a reason the chinese investment firm is interested in the abandoned richman bros. factory). what sort of infastructure will be required (once you gobble up this land for spin off) to link it towards the port? where is that money coming from? Will the development of the port allow proper clearances for the air flight paths?

 

 

While I certainly agree with your general sentiments and "realty slap", I do think the 30 (more likely 50) year plan is TOO long. If I had my druthers, the port would move tomorrow and the land would be available to let the chips fall as they may. Who knows what kind of momentum would build up... plus, one thing I think people forget is that the port move is not only intended to allow lakefront development downtown but also make the port more efficient/useful/profitable/etc.

 

Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinions, but I highly doubt the Port getting in the way of the development will ever be an issue.  They are currently a 100 acre operation and are moving to a 200 acre operation.  There will be a time that they will be able to clear out if need be.  Rather I think the problems are going to be much more centered around how are we going to pay (or raise through investment) for the billions of dollars (both public and private) in development taking place here.  And how are we going to fill these places without not only sucking tennants from our own existing downtown, but some suburbs as well.  I'm no fan of the suburbs and the businesses that have located there, but without a regionalistic aproach to completely sharing all revenues this could be absolutely catastrophic for some suburbs.

 

I really hope everyone understands the size of this land.  It's essentially like developing from W. 9th to E. 12th and Lakeside to Prospect... do you know how long that took to commercialize the first time around?  I think a 25-27 year timeline is more than reasonable.  And I don't think it's going to feel like that long, once a new phase continues to open up every five years.  It'll take 2-3 years for the construction of each phase anyway... and anticipation of what is coming next will be through the roof. 

Phase 1 covers a slightly smaller acreage than what Stark wanted to build on in the Warehouse District.

These guys are dropping fast...

 

The top administrator at Cleveland's port abruptly quits his $283,000-a-year job

By James F. McCarty,The Plain Dealer

November 06, 2009, 6:15PM

 

"The board just thought it was time for new leadership," Board Chairman Steven Williams said after the vote. Williams and other board members refused to say what prompted the resignation, but documents show they will pay Wasserman $300,000 in severance.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/11/post_110.html

 

 

...$300,000.00! I would disappear for about 10 years and tan professionally

I know this news is a week old but no one has posted about it yet:

 

Planners' approval of waterfront plan is sensible

By Steven Litt, The Plain Dealer

December 05, 2009, 5:49AM

 

Despite extreme turmoil at the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority, the beleaguered agency is doing at least one thing right.

 

The port's real estate director, Eric Johnson, has led the formulation of a strong new plan to transform 100 acres of downtown waterfront from industrial shipping to an urban neighborhood with parks, offices and a continuous public promenade.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2009/12/planners_approval_of_waterfron.html

 

check out the image in the story.

Yeah, I was kind on surprised that nobody posted it

How much of the pinnacle is sold? 20% maybe 90%.

 

There... went ahead and fixed that for you.  As X pointed out please keep this to lakefront development news, but when you post on topics in other threads, at least get your facts straight.  72 of 80 units in the Pinnacle are sold.  That's 90%.  :roll:

Actually it's 76 of 80

"All these great ideas have stopped and will never come to fruition."

 

???

 

I think they all will.  It will just take a better economy.  Look at Cleveland in the 90's.

Actually it's 76 of 80

 

That's pretty darn good, better than what I thought.  I guess that shows that there is indeed a market for higher end housing downtown.

I know this news is a week old but no one has posted about it yet:

 

Planners' approval of waterfront plan is sensible

By Steven Litt, The Plain Dealer

December 05, 2009, 5:49AM

 

Despite extreme turmoil at the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority, the beleaguered agency is doing at least one thing right.

 

The port's real estate director, Eric Johnson, has led the formulation of a strong new plan to transform 100 acres of downtown waterfront from industrial shipping to an urban neighborhood with parks, offices and a continuous public promenade.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2009/12/planners_approval_of_waterfron.html

 

check out the image in the story.

 

the basic plan looks great to me. it'll happen.

 

i like the irregular angles and water taxi bit. hows about making the largest water pond feature, like the one just north of cbs, or where ever it might eventually be, into something formally grand and interactive like a model sail boat pond in the summer and ice skating pond in the winter?

 

Port's plan to redo dock under microscope

 

article from Crain's:

 

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20100111/SUB1/301119989/1003&Profile=1003

Cleveland Design Competition will unleash new ideas for the downtown Mall and lakefront

 

For the third year in a row, Bradley Fink and Michael Christoff, who work at Westlake Reed Leskosky and Forum Architects, respectively, have organized the Cleveland Design Competition.

 

The idea is simple: using the Internet to invite architects around the world to come up with solutions to design challenges in Cleveland.

 

The competition this year focused on a hypothetical new lakefront rail station to replace the puny, outdated Amtrak station along the railroad tracks just north of the downtown Mall, which also functions as the roof of the city's convention center.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2010/01/cleveland_design_competition_w.html

That proposal by Mario Caceres and Christian Canonico (the image in the article) is very cool.

You are cordially invited to attend the 2009 Cleveland Design Competition Awards Reception and Exhibition Opening.

 

 

Where:    Colonial Marketplace West Arcade (enter off Euclid)

                  530 Euclid Avenue

                  Cleveland, Ohio 44115

 

When:      Friday, January 29th, 2010, 6:00pm-9:00pm

 

                  6:00pm    Light hors d'oeuvres and Project 2009: Lakefront

                                    Station Design Ideas Exhibit

                  7:00pm    Welcome

                  7:10pm    Introduction by Councilman Joe Cimperman, City of

                                    Cleveland

                  7:25pm    Announcement of the Awards by Kathryn Lincoln,

                                    Chair of the Board of Directors, Lincoln Institute of

                                    Land Policy

                  9:00pm    Awards Reception Conclusion

 

 

If you have any questions about the reception, please do not hesitate to email us at [email protected]. A location map for directions can be found on our webpage @ http://www.clevelandcompetition.com/reception.html.

 

Become a fan on our new  Facebook page and invite guests to the event!

Cleveland Design Competition

 

The winning submissions will be announced at the Awards Reception on January 29th, 2010 and emails to the winning entrants will follow on January 30th, 2010.

That proposal by Mario Caceres and Christian Canonico (the image in the article) is very cool.

 

I'd hate to be the guy that had to mow that thing. Very neat concept though. Practically speaking I like the Russel Colin design. I think that one is actually do-able.

That proposal by Mario Caceres and Christian Canonico (the image in the article) is very cool.

 

I'd hate to be the guy that had to mow that thing. Very neat concept though. Practically speaking I like the Russel Colin design. I think that one is actually do-able.

 

The Caceres and Canonico design seems to take away quite a bit of parking behind City Hall and the Old County Courthouse.  I like the innovation and all but, practically speaking, I would just prefer the old idea of building a Mall D which would act as a roof to the station and extend pedestrian access to the lakefront without having to worry about getting clipped crossing Route 2.

Can't believe this hasn't been posted yet... 

 

 

 

 

Cleveland port authority board member calls for closing Burke Lakefront Airport

By James F. McCarty,The Plain Dealer

February 19, 2010, 9:00AM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- A new proposal to close Burke Lakefront Airport and use the land for development, parks and a relocated port is being floated to members of Cleveland City Council and Cuyahoga County commissioners.

 

richardknoth.jpgSpecial to The Plain DealerRichard KnothAttorney Richard Knoth, a member of the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority's board of directors, authored a 13-page memo ( burke.pdf) that calls for converting the city-owned reliever airport on the downtown waterfront into "Project Emerald City."

 

More at http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/02/post_218.html

 

 

 

 

^Me neither, apparently.

 

[Deleted duplicate post of article link]

 

This proposal doesn't seem to have a lot of legs though.

They always seem to leave out how much money we would have to pay back to the federal government if we closed Burke.  I also don't understand what they want to do with all that land.  They would probably want to turn it into a suburban style office park which is exactly what we don't need in the core of Cleveland.  I could get behind the plan IF AND ONLY IF they planned to move the port to the East end of Burke and created a public park and some dense housing and office developments on the West end of the land.  Even then it would be a tough sell for me...

The Shoreway really disconnects Burke from everything else.  I could support a recreational redevelopment of Burke a al Milwaukee's lakefront, but not business and residential... at least not at this time.  Let's try and develop the 5 acres north of CBS before we tackle this manmouth.

 

Besides, aren't there some environmental issues with developing Burke considering it is built on drudge and waste?  It's not "real" land, is it?

^Yeah, it's built on dredge and waste, but so is Cleveland Browns Stadium, the RRHOF, Cleveland Port, and Battery Park in New York...

 

But I do agree that it's very disconnected and it would be very difficult to properly develop.  I still think the area is best served by keeping Burke open.

I too think commercial/residential development of Burke is overrated.  It's isolated and characterless.  The big positive to closing it is that it eliminates the need to to wait 40-50 years to open up the existing port land, which is far more intriguing. 

They always seem to leave out how much money we would have to pay back to the federal government if we closed Burke.

I don't remember exactly how much money that is, and didn't see it in a quick perusal of the memo, but certainly the $500 million+ that it will take to build a new manmade port isn't pocket change either. 

 

 

I felt that the paper (and the business interests in the region) would want the Port to move to Burke instead of waiting 20+ years for the CDF to fill (remember, Dike 14 was begun in the 70s... the E.55th site plan is more than 2 times that size).

 

I have to say that this makes more sense- I still haven't bought into the idea of moving the Port to E.55th based on the time line given.  I know the logistics regarding site attributes, however waiting 20 years for the port to move is longer than I would like to see as a resident of this region.  I know I'm not alone on this.

 

If Chicago and Kansas City can close their airports to open up land for development, it can be done here.  This is our lakefront, and we deserve better. 

^I wonder if they could open up the far east end of Burke as a public park space with areas to fish, volleyball courts, playing fields, etc...

 

That would appease those that want access to the lake while keeping Burke open as a functional airport.

As a player myself, I just love that every new project idea these days seems to include volleyball courts :-D

 

Burke is ginormous.  If the airport shuts down, they should have plenty of room for public access via Marginal.

^Why shut down Burke?  There is PLENTY of room on the far East end of Burke for a public park.  It could also be easily accessed with an entrance off Marginal at Aviation High.

Haven't a number of posters explained in detail in the past that it is almost impossible to build anything of consequence on Burke's land due to the makeup of the land and environmental issues (or at least that would not be cost prohibitive). 

The northeast part of Burke is really unstable. I don't think there's going to ever be a public park there.

^Why shut down Burke?  There is PLENTY of room on the far East end of Burke for a public park.  It could also be easily accessed with an entrance off Marginal at Aviation High.

 

The whole point is to de-airport the land to use some of it for port operations, eliminating the need to spend $500 million+ and 40-50 years building a new area for the port at E. 55th.  They certainly would not need all the airport land for maritime bidniss, but dreams of making it into a neighborhood or developed are probably ill-conceived, since the area is completely shut off from the rest of the city by the shoreway, etc. 

I covered all of this over a handful of posts on pages 19 and 20.

 

We aren't waiting 20+ years to "develop the existing port land", we're developing it in phases over 20+ years.  That's a big difference. If we could snap our fingers and move the port tomorrow, that plan wouldn't change.  There isn't the demand to develop a site the size of almost a quarter of downtown in a short period of time.  Additionally, I've talked to some people at the city and several commercial real estate folks in the past about this.  E.55th is the chosen site because from a logistical and access point of view it blows everything else out of the water hands down.  The only real discussion I ever heard were that there were factions that always thought a 200 acre port was way too large given that our current 110 acre port is underutilized as is.  Some want the new port no larger than the current one.  And yes... parts of Burke are indeed toxic, not all, but parts.  Which will be a big challenge to develop.  Not to mention... Burke is almost the size of all of downtown cleveland.  The way the current port is set up, and the fact that they want to continue to consolidate operations to allow for development of the current land before finally tranfering to the new facility, we shouldn't run into a land crunch on the existing port land for at least 15 years, at least.  By then, enough of the new dyke should be constructed that they can beginning moving operations.

I understand that the port land can not be developed overnight.  However I would hate to see the area and spinoff developments stagnate because we're waiting on fill to pile up at E. 55th.  If/when the time becomes right and the market is ripe for development, it would be good to not have stuff in the way of it.

But again, I think many people are missing the intention of the plan which is for the port to consolidate to allow for continued development over time.  Like I said, i think we're a waaayyysss out (at least 15 years) from the port getting in the way of anything.  And the port NEEDS to allow this to happen and sell land for their relocation.  And by the time we've used up land from the consolidation the fill should be to the point of allowing the start of relocation.

People should take a good look at the Port's land with a satellite image.  Think about the current prospects for a complete development of the FEB and then compare the size of that land to the size of the Port's land.  Look at the size of the WHD parking lot's and do the same comparison.  I think you would conclude that Mr. Mayor's "at least" 15 year estimate is optimistic at best.  That is, unless any of you have a couple billion dollars to lend to a developer willing to roll the dice.

 

While I was originally opposed to the E 55th proposal, I have grown to appreciate the reasons why it makes such sense given our desire to become a "container" port.  That access to rail and road can't be beat from that spot.  And the Shoreway effectively blocks any meaningful development in that area anyway.  Sorry Quay 55 folks... love what you did with that "shell" of a building, but it is what it is.

 

But given the current issues that seem to be possibly blocking the 55 site, which to my understanding is funding for the new dike... why again can't we use Dike 14?  Is it solely environmental concerns due to migratory bird paths?

^IIRC they couldn't use dike 14 simply because it wasn't constructed to support infrastructure.  Doesn't have the necessary retaining walls and wasn't packed tightly to support port infrastructure.

 

The Corps of Engineers is going to need a dump site for river dredgings anyway, so why not let them create land for our new port?  I was under the impression that the city/port would only be responsible for the additional costs associated with making the dike stable enough for port operations.  Doesn't sound like a bad deal to me.

 

Regardless of what powers decide where the new port operations go, a new containment facility MUST be built. It will likely be be built were the proposed port relocation is planned.

i was wondering what was going on in the lot across east 9th from the RRHOF, i know that the building was demolished awhile back and was wondering if there was any plans for that lot

I've got an out-of-the-blue question.  Can anyone tell me what the "broader" visions for the Quay 55 development and surrounding areas was?  Was there a Phase 2, so to speak?  Anyone know anyone that lives out there?  It just seems so desolate and lonely, if beautifully situated on the lake.

I thought I heard once that Lebron had one of the units.  I've never heard of a phase two.  As far as the surrounding area, the new port was to go just to the east.

Here's a link to their site which shows Phase II Townhomes, etc:

 

http://www.quay55.com/html/faq.htm