Also from that site:

 

What are the different phases of Quay 55?

 

 

 

    Phase I:

 

        Renovation of the Nicholson Cleveland Terminal Building into Quay 55’s 138 residential apartments.

 

    Phase II: 

 

        Construction of approximately 70 lakeside townhomes along the land directly east of the building.

 

    Phase III: 

 

        Proposed development of a multi-level office, restaurant and entertainment complex across the harbor from Quay 55.

 

    Phase IV: 

 

        Proposed development of a private marina in the harbor adjacent to Quay 55.

 

   

 

Those plans are old.  I don't know if they are still pursuing them.

What are their occupancy rates anyways?

im pretty sure Quay was sold in a HUD bankruptcy auction

Since this thread was revived, are the Lakefront plans around CBS abandoned entirely?  Those proposals for that area were excellent, I'd would be really upset if nothing happened down there

IIRC those plans involved moving the port to E55th, which now isn't happening.  I'm guessing the plans will need to be reworked in light of that change in circumstance.

IIRC those plans involved moving the port to E55th, which now isn't happening.  I'm guessing the plans will need to be reworked in light of that change in circumstance.

 

I thought they could still move forward with the Easternmost portion of that development, near the Science Center?  I thought I heard that the port was still willing to sell some of that land North and Northeast of Browns stadium, but we haven't heard boo about that lately.

I could be crazy, but wasn't the easternmost buildings / lots a) not currently being utilized (outside of surface parking) and b) already under city ownership? Last I had heard, they were still looking to do some development on that particular part of the site.

Cleveland Browns pitch mixed-use lakefront vision, hope to attract Cleveland Clinic, private investors

Published: Wednesday, April 20, 2011, 12:01 AM

  By Michelle Jarboe, The Plain Dealer

 

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The Cleveland Browns are making an economic-development play, attempting to lure the private sector to the edge of Lake Erie.

Leaders of the football franchise said Tuesday that they envision a mixed-use project, including athletic fields and a potential sports-medicine or wellness facility, on more than 20 acres north of Cleveland Browns Stadium.

 

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2011/04/cleveland_browns_pitch_mixed-u.html

not saying that this is any more likely than the other lakefront plans, but I like that they have ideas for actual tenants and uses in this plan.  The other plans relied on the notion that "they" would develop, whomever "they" may be.

I like the way they take the open space axis of the Malls and extend it out to the Lakefront.

I like it.  Anything that does more to attract people to downtown & utilize the waterfront.  Create more of a destination with Voinovich park and increase the traffic on the E. 9th Lakefront  RTA stop...

So would this be in place of the residential plan they had outlined a year or so back?

It looks like the plan has them building a parking garage over the tracks where the Amtrak station is.  Does this mean a new Amtrak station?

Even though it's larval stage, this is already my favorite development project.

 

 

*yawn*

 

Just another plan with no realistic path to becoming reality (yet).  I do like how they incorporate Browns stadium more in this proposal than in some of the others.  I like the idea of bridging the RR tracks with a parking garage... that seems to be a good use of that difficult piece of real estate.  I wish they would have pushed the idea of extending the Mall over the tracks.

It looks like the plan has them building a parking garage over the tracks where the Amtrak station is.  Does this mean new Amtrak station?

 

Good catch.  I do like the possibilities here.  Most of the ground level (track level) of the parking garage would likely be dedicated to the station.  The parking garage could also create a more pleasant, covered station platform. 

This may be the first time a non gov't agency has pushed this.  I think the Browns are looking for more revenue from the stadium, but right now there is no reason to be near there, unless it is a game. 

 

Its the most viable plan in the past 20 years. (But, that really isn't saying too much)

 

 

I wonder what the is timeline for this vision?  It seems like a bit of jumping the gun to ask RTA to extend free trolley's at this point.

Interesting. Looks very plausible seeing that it really only looks like 3 or 4 new buildings, plus the fieldhouse (which I am still mulling over) and the parking garage.  I like that parking garage there, that is a very good use for that parcle over the tracks and pinned in against the bluff and shoreway bridge. The plan also leaves the area north of the convention center open for future development.

It looks like the plan has them building a parking garage over the tracks where the Amtrak station is.  Does this mean a new Amtrak station?

 

The images are contradictory. The aerial shows the Amtrak station intact, with the parking area built over it.

 

The masterplan image shows a "Train station" label below the stadium, but isn't clear where exactly that would be. I would assume it would be under the parking deck spanning the tracks.

 

EDIT: I wonder if this is the "big project" Gilbert referred to?

I wonder why they left open the NW corner of the area, north of the "youth athletics" field.

I wonder why they left open the NW corner of the area, north of the "youth athletics" field.

According to the article the Port wants to reserve that land for a future Ferry landing or other maritime activity.

 

When I was in HS, Youngstown State used to have a passing flag football league in June for the local HS teams. It would be cool if they do build that youth field for the Browns to sponsor something like that.

Here comes the official announcement.......

 

 

From: Office of the Mayor and Cleveland Browns

Nancy Lesic, 216.392.9634

Neal Gulkis, 440.891.5015

Andrea V. Taylor, Press Secretary

Office of the Mayor

(216) 664-4171 or (216) 857-7998

Belinda I. Saldaña, Deputy Press Secretary

(216) 664-2223 or (216) 857-3808

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

 

April 20, 2011

News Advisory

Browns to Announce Lakefront Development Effort

 

CLEVELAND – Today, Mayor Frank G. Jackson will join Cleveland Browns President Mike Holmgren and other community leaders at Cleveland Browns Stadium to announce an effort to develop a Lakefront District that could include new retail, recreational, entertainment and office facilities.

 

WHO: Mayor Frank G. Jackson

    Mike Holmgren, President, Cleveland Browns

    Other Community Leaders

WHAT: Lakefront Development Effort Announcement

WHEN: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 10:30 a.m.

WHERE: Legends Club, Cleveland Browns Stadium

 

Media Note - Parking: In “West Gate” parking garage (at northwest corner of Cleveland Browns Stadium. Media will be escorted from parking garage to the Legends Club. Media will asked to present credentials upon entering the facility.)

 

- 30 -

This may be the first time a non gov't agency has pushed this.  I think the Browns are looking for more revenue from the stadium, but right now there is no reason to be near there, unless it is a game.

 

I'll keep cheering for Division I football at CSU to grow the residential aspect of the campus and use the stadium a few more days a year!

I would label these plans as 'measured'.  Great idea throwing the Clinic's name in there, even if they don't have a committment.  In all of these types of developments, we know that an anchor tenant is key.  CCF and the Browns would be great 'spearheads' for lakefront development.... better than the Port Authority or City Hall.

I'm on record here as skeptical of sports team involvement on the mall commission... but if their involvement can lead to large-scale development we wouldn't otherwise see, I'm all for it.

As many have said, these plans are just ideas, but I think having the Browns name behind the plans is very important and promising. Yes, the Browns hope to get private investors like CCF, and yes, I think they will have more success than the plans in the past. I would really love some residential planning North of the stadium and easy access to/from both the Mall (to the south) and the Flats East area (to the west). But anyways, the plans do look pretty formal here:

 

http://thelakefrontdistrict.com/

Love this comment lol

 

"Love the concept...Wouldnt it be cool if those horrible railroad tracks which cut-off the lake from the city could be removed or buried?"

 

What about the shoreway?

 

The masterplan image shows a "Train station" label below the stadium, but isn't clear where exactly that would be. I would assume it would be under the parking deck spanning the tracks.

 

 

If you look closely, it actually shows tracks heading right to where it says "Train Station"

I like this plan.  One thing I definitely like about it is that it doesn't seem to include that awful firefighter memorial [i appreciate the idea, but not the design nor random location.]  Though I'd miss the wind turbine.

 

So, does this plan contemplate demolition of the existing parking garage between CBS and the Science Center?  I'd assume so, but it's so low to the ground that maybe it's embedded in the quad there.

EDIT: never mind, looks like it is still there, but with access moved to the northern edge.

 

Certainly not specific to this particular proposal, but if we do get a new pedestrian bridge, might be cool to go with something kind of flamboyant, in the vein of those nifty Miguel Rosales designs (though obviously not a draw bridge).  The fancy cantilever ped bridges are a little cliche now, I suppose, but still pretty cool IMHO.

I think they could leave the wind turbine there. Its not really in the way of any of their plans. Hopefully, if this project happens, they decide to keep it

Cleveland Browns' vision for the lakefront could benefit from public input

 

The Cleveland Browns would appear to have very little in common with Case Western Reserve University.

But the team’s announcement that it wants to catalyze development on the downtown lakefront is motivated by a spirit of enlightened self-interest similar to that which CWRU has shown over the past decade by jump-starting the $150 million-plus Uptown development in University Circle.

 

The university helped assemble eight acres of land and build the partnerships needed to create the beautifully designed housing, retail and cultural development now under construction at the intersection of Euclid Avenue and Mayfield Road.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2011/04/cleveland_browns_vision_for_th.html

Wow! I love this plan. Is it common for sports teams to put this much effort into developing their city? (I know they are looking out for themselves in the long run by drawing more people toward the Browns stadium, but still). 

 

I do wish the plans included extending the mall across the tracks, but I understand how costly that could be.

 

On a semi-related note, does any else think it would be a good idea to move the USS Cod to either north or east of Voinovich Park? The harbor is already home to the Mather museum, the RRHoF, and the GLSC so it would make sense to add another attraction to that area. That would also give more reason to build that pedestrian bridge to Voinovich Park.

Oh my God...Steve Litt wrote an article saying a development could benefit from public impute.  I think he has that on speed dial on his computer (allow me to mix my technologies).  As worthy a goal that is, with which I very much agree, it get's kinda old after a while coming from him.  I guess he feels he has to be pedantic on the subject since he does not believe it is happening enough.

A few quick thoughts:  If I am not mistaken, this plan is different than the other plans because all of the necessary stakeholders seem to be on board.  Past plans came from the city or a developer but did not include input from the Browns, the Port, RTA, GLSC, and Rock Hall of Fame.  If these parties are truly on board, then this plan could have some legs. 

 

I am wondering what the next steps are going to be.  I am not sure if this was brought up at the press conference.  I hope the Browns plan to be very active in the next couple of months to keep some momentum. 

Just checked out the pics...I know this is major conceptual and very much "dream land" but I really cannot see the FAA allowing buildings that tall where platted in the pretty pictures

When does the Port's lease of that parcel end?

It'd be a pretty neat project, but I think effectiveness would increase exponentially if they added residential to the "mixed-use." Investors could potentially make a TON of money with residential properties there - and it'd become more of a neighborhood

Just checked out the pics...I know this is major conceptual and very much "dream land" but I really cannot see the FAA allowing buildings that tall where platted in the pretty pictures

 

You are correct.  There was a discussion not that long ago about having a pedestrian bridge to walk over from the Browns stadium side across the water to Voinovich park and the plans were axed due to the height of a bridge being tipped up & interfering with planes....

It should be able to be at least a few stories higher than the RRHOF though

I understand the reasoning with not closing burke due to not wanting to draw development away from other parts of the city, but to negate development there because of an airport which charges $5, $8, $10 to land a plane is ludicrous.  Turning it into a public park with some acreage for development would be the best land use of burke imo 

The problem with burke is that it seems to far disconnected with the rest of Downtown, and the city. Im not sure the park would be used that much. I would first like to focus on the Northcoast Harbor area

The problem with burke is that it seems to far disconnected with the rest of Downtown, and the city. Im not sure the park would be used that much. I would first like to focus on the Northcoast Harbor area

 

Well you can rent some construction equipment and pull a Mayor Daley, haha. (Edit: oops misread your post, sorry if that doesn't make sense)

 

I didn't look that closely at the renderings but the buildings didn't seem to any taller than CBS. Would those buildings on the NE corner be more in the flight path than CBS? Is that the issue.

 

Just checked out the pics...I know this is major conceptual and very much "dream land" but I really cannot see the FAA allowing buildings that tall where platted in the pretty pictures

 

You are correct.  There was a discussion not that long ago about having a pedestrian bridge to walk over from the Browns stadium side across the water to Voinovich park and the plans were axed due to the height of a bridge being tipped up & interfering with planes....

 

Was that pedestrian bridge plan definitely killed by the FAA?  The last Cleveland.com article I can find was from last September said that the city was waiting to hear from the FAA.  I know it's been many months since then, but I don't think I've seen any further reporting on it. 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,3638.msg555807/topicseen.html#quickreply

I don't think BKL would be an issue, but I'll review more carefully later and report back.  The closest point is around 2200 feet (at zero feet altitude) between a proposed building in this plan and the western end of a runway. Runway protection zones are 3-dimensional trapezoids widening and increasing in height away from the runway end...some calculations must be done.

I don't think BKL would be an issue, but I'll review more carefully later and report back.  The closest point is around 2200 feet (at zero feet altitude) between a proposed building in this plan and the western end of a runway. Runway protection zones are 3-dimensional trapezoids widening and increasing in height away from the runway end...some calculations must be done.

 

I have to think that the Browns knew this fact before making these drawings public......right?? I hope???

 

It would be flat out stupid to try and win investors and public support with structural imagery that is not legally permissible.

 

They must know what they're doing.

If I did the math correct, the buildings at the closest point can be about 336 feet tall. For comparison, the Marriot at Key is 320 feet. That is if the runway protection zone is the only factor, but I believe it might have to be shorter due to the runway approach surface

If I did the math correct, the buildings at the closest point can be about 336 feet tall. For comparison, the Marriot at Key is 320 feet. That is if the runway protection zone is the only factor, but I believe it might have to be shorter due to the runway approach surface

 

Thanks for the math!

 

Anyhow, you don't want waterfront buildings to be too tall. Especially here with the N-S orientation, you could risk shading out the waterfront. Some form of height restriction may be a blessing in disguise.

If I did the math correct, the buildings at the closest point can be about 336 feet tall. For comparison, the Marriot at Key is 320 feet. That is if the runway protection zone is the only factor, but I believe it might have to be shorter due to the runway approach surface

 

Thanks for the math!

 

Anyhow, you don't want waterfront buildings to be too tall. Especially here with the N-S orientation, you could risk shading out the waterfront. Some form of height restriction may be a blessing in disguise.

 

Just for reference CBS is quoted as being 171 ft tall accordin the the Browns website.

 

http://www.clevelandbrowns.com/stadium/about-the-stadium.html

I understand the reasoning with not closing burke due to not wanting to draw development away from other parts of the city, but to negate development there because of an airport which charges $5, $8, $10 to land a plane is ludicrous.  Turning it into a public park with some acreage for development would be the best land use of burke imo 

 

As has been discussed before if Burke is closed by the city then we will owe back all the money the Federal government gave us to build it (many many millions).  And then what do you do with all that vacant land for which you just paid millions of dollars to transform from a useful public asset to a field?  If allowed to be developed privately it would likely be transformed into suburban office parks on the West end and large industrial warehouses and distribution centers on the East side.  People that think closing BKL would be the best thing that ever happened in Cleveland aren't thinking clearly, IMO. 

 

If they were to close Burke though, the first thing they should do is move most of the port operations to the East end of the Burke land, freeing up current port land East of the Cuyahoga for development.  Will never happen though.

 

Regarding height restrictions for the buildings, I don't think it's going to prohibit development.  It may cause the buildings on the Northern end of the parcel to be reduced in height, but this is a good thing IMO.  The developer should scale the buildings in height to allow clear lake views for the buildings to the South.

^Agreed. The only way that I probably would support closing Burke is if the port moved to that land, cause I find the land where the port is currently located a way more valuable asset to the city.