I don't know KJP, seems like you're talking about letting a few moneyed interests make decisions that should be made publicly.

Avoid involving government as much as possible. Otherwise it will never get done.

Don't involve the government?  Who owns that land?  Who'll have to approve the tax abatements and other incentives, and who'll most likely be asked to foot the bill for any infrastructure on and around the site?

^But wouldn't the developers have more leverage if they say here's the plan, we've got the money all we need you to do is build some new sewer lines and its done?

 

I think KJP is saying don't involve the government because getting approvals for the things you mentioned may drag and drag and interested parties (read: investors willing to foot the bill) may move on and this thing or any project like it is shelved. 

Maybe we need Ari Maron to do some motivational speaking.  He seems to be the only one who gets it.

 

Amen 327!  Maron clearly understands the concept of building large development by successfully executing smaller, achievable smaller projects in coordination.  E. 4th Street is their stark realization of this... Oh yeah, speaking of Stark, what has he done, in the city/downtown, with his gigantic, save-the-world projects?  Answer: nothing.

 

But back to the Lakefront, I'm encouraged by the Browns announcement.  As much as I despise putting that open air-limited-use stadium on such valuable land, I think it's important that a high-profile institution like the Browns take the media lead in encouraging (in this case, jump-starting) development around the stadium.  And it appears that the proposal, a la Air Maron, is in smaller, doable piecemeal projects united in their holistic vision for this small, yet valuable, portion of the lakefront.

 

As to KJP's comments: I disagree that there shouldn't be some governmental involvement despite the vision of, say, Jimmy DiMora being led away in cuffs (to name but one example of govt corruption/mess)... to the contrary, I think our local govt needs to take the LEAD in directing and encouraging development, and I just don't mean cheerleading... Look at the Gateway stadiums, as an example.  From the late 80s into the 90s, our government, for once, was unified in the vision of a sports complex on that horrible site (the decrepit Central Market, derelict buildings with a bunch of peep shows).  Through some crafty luring actions (yeah, including a sweetheart tax deal to the Gunds to bring the Cavs downtown from Summit Co. which, in turn, got more City voters interested), the proposal actually succeeded -- with the centerpiece being the beutiful (Progressive) baseball stadium.  And despite my many debates with, now long-gone daniDC regarding how great an impact those Gateway stadiums meant, it's undeniable that they turned, almost overnight, the decrepit, hooker-ridden Prospect/Huron corridor into downtown's 2nd most (these days, most) desirable nightlife/restaurant/residential district downtown.

 

Cleveland's problem hasn't been government involvement in such projects, it's been the failure of government to take the lead in public-private initiatives... The good news is that this has changed, somewhat, whereby the Med Mart, casino, Flats East Bank and Univ. Circle (esp UC Uptown) are all examples of this.

 

Short news clip. (So is the Cleveland Clinic actually in?)

 

Cleveland's problem hasn't been government involvement in such projects, it's been the failure of government to take the lead in public-private initiatives... The good news is that this has changed, somewhat, whereby the Med Mart, casino, Flats East Bank and Univ. Circle (esp UC Uptown) are all examples of this.

 

Exactly.  A lot of positive trends are developing and hopefully that continues.

Well that video is very encouraging. I mean maybe the talk is over,  maybe this is our time. Could the next 5 years be less talk and more action. So on this very depressing weather day I am going to think positive. I mean in Holmgren we trust. Right?

^agreed -- this is great news -- nice to see them all put their money where their mouth is...hopefully!

 

they need to use some of the wasted port property just to the west of the stadium too (although not all of it since the port seems to be staying put, which i think is also great news as it will make an interesting development mix on that side).

 

and while they are at it why not bring back the old stadium gardens in some form, too?

 

 

ohh we are full of ideas aren't we? lol!

 

 

 

I think KJP is saying don't involve the government because getting approvals for the things you mentioned may drag and drag and interested parties (read: investors willing to foot the bill) may move on and this thing or any project like it is shelved. 

 

Correct. I can't tell you how many times a jobs-creating proposal has been put before the mayor's staff and/or council and they act they don't want to be bothered with it or, worse, they throw up roadblocks in the path of it. This isn't a commentary on the current mayoral staff/council, but all that I've encountered since the 1980s. It actually gets worse when you have to seek federal funding for a construction project, which lengthens timelines to an average of 10 years for projects covered by NEPA. It's not worth it.

not so fast -- what is worth it is finding and using more creative fed programs to entice development, such as the MB5 program that provides green cards to foreign investors -- which fcr is using to help finance atlantic yards in bklyn. wouldn't it be great to open up all this prime lakefront redevelopment opportunity to the world outside of cleveland and see what happens? anyway, thats just one program example, the point being believe it or not long fed timelines are not always the case.

I believe that's a tax credit, not a grant. Federal grants typically require long timelines.

its just another development tool. grants are not the only game in washington.

Yes, fortunately. There are some government incentives that limit the involvement of government. Unfortunately, these are rare.

 

Moving on......

not so fast -- what is worth it is finding and using more creative fed programs to entice development, such as the MB5 program that provides green cards to foreign investors -- which fcr is using to help finance atlantic yards in bklyn.

 

It's also being used in the financing for Flats East Bank, so it's definitely on the radar of local developers.  Wouldn't surprise me at all if ended up in this Browns proposal too given the high profile local "brands" involved (Clinic, Browns).

 

If this project happened, do you think the Browns would move their training facility there from Berea?

If this project happened, do you think the Browns would move their training facility there from Berea?

 

I doubt it, that place is pretty nice. I was friends with a security guy who worked the night shift, we used to go in and kick field goals, work out and I even went through a couple of their lockers. Tim Couch had a small head, his helmet wouldn't fit.

If this project happened, do you think the Browns would move their training facility there from Berea?

 

I doubt it, that place is pretty nice. I was friends with a security guy who worked the night shift, we used to go in and kick field goals, work out and I even went through a couple of their lockers. Tim Couch had a small head, his helmet wouldn't fit.

Thats mildly disturbing.  I feel like a facility for training camp shouldn't be downtown.

I dont see why they wouldn't. Renderings show a field house. And I really miss playing football now

FYI........

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,17673.msg556579.html#msg556579

Also posted at the Burke Airport News thread

 

New hangar space at Cleveland's Burke Lakefront Airport could mark start of lakefront plan

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Efforts to build hangar space for an aircraft maintenance company at Burke Lakefront Airport could prove the first piece of the city of Cleveland's larger, expansive plans for redeveloping the lakefront.

 

Constant Aviation, a company based at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, is looking for as much as 100,000 square feet at Burke. One of the potential sites is Aviation High School, which has been vacant for years except for a short period when it was used as a homeless shelter.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/05/new_hangar_space_at_burke_lake.html

^I'd love to see a new runway built North of the current runway.  That would free up a ton of space for additional hangers and operations.  At that point Burke may be able to attract some cargo operations which would really increase it's value and utility. 

^ Interesting. Is there any value in an air/maritime port hub? That is one option that I had run through my mind, when I read your post.

I have the fortune of staring at Burke every day. Here is a photo I just snapped a few minutes agos:

 

Last fall there was a constant stream of trucks hauling away fill just north of the runways. It looks like they went down to the water table as it has been full of water ever since. I've always wondered how stable this land is. What kind of structures could feasibly be built on this type of fill?

 

I've always said that putting the fill in Lake Erie so close to downtown hurt us in the end. Everything in that photo from the train tracks north used to be Lake Erie. Lakeside Avenue downtown used to be well, on the Lake's side! Just imagine what downtown could have been like if we we started to fill in Lake Erie from east 30th and points east instead? Perhaps Cleveland's best lakefront plan now might be returning the shoreline back to its original spot. ;) at least the warehouse district, medical mart and convention center would be on the water oh and it force a denser downtown with the relocation of Browns, RH, and GLSC!

Yeah I hear a lot of that land around Burke is pretty unstable. I don't understand what's so hard about creating land that is stable enough to hold large structures. The Aztecs sure had it figured out when they built Tenochtitlan centuries ago.

^I'd love to see a new runway built North of the current runway.  That would free up a ton of space for additional hangers and operations.  At that point Burke may be able to attract some cargo operations which would really increase it's value and utility. 

 

I'd actually like to see new development for Burke stay away from the Lake.  Make that area to the North something the public can use, such as a park.  I'm not buying into these, IMO, far-fetched plans for mixed use along marginal road.  I would rather the City focus its efforts on the land north of CBS for any new construction.

Why is the land the Browns Stadium, Science Center, and RRHOF more stable then Burke? They are both man made. Anyone know?

^ I know that the older parts of Burke acted as a landfill before there were government standards. So a lot of it is just filled with all kinds of garbage. However, that part of the picture that is filled with water is a newer section of Burke made with dredgings from the Cuyahoga, so it should not be unstable.

Not sure how I feel about this.....

 

Probate Judge Anthony Russo using clout to steer Cleveland Metroparks toward the lakeshore

Published: Monday, June 06, 2011, 6:00 AM

  By James Ewinger, The Plain Dealer

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Ohio's probate judges wield a lot of power over the living and the dead, and the senior judge in Cuyahoga County is using his to force the Cleveland Metroparks into a more significant role on the lakefront.

 

Judge Anthony Russo has been passionate and outspoken about the park system and the lake, assuming a very hands-on activist role. Russo has used his statutory authority over the Metroparks to try to give residents better access to the lakefront.

 

Working through park commissioners

 

But the way Russo has gone about it differs markedly from other probate judges with the power to appoint park boards, and a law professor at Case Western Reserve University believes Russo's methods go beyond the authority granted to him by state law.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/06/probate_judge_anthony_russo_us.html

Is there a separate thread for this?

 

Euclid building new fishing pier for Lake Erie anglers

 

The City of Euclid wants to be a fishing destination for Lake Erie anglers, building a $1.1 million pier in 2011 that will anchor the proposed $30 million Waterfront Improvements Plan thatt includes a lakefront marina, sandy beach and shoreline trails.

 

Construction will begin soon on the Sims Park Fishing Pier, adding 140 feet to the city's little-used short pier.

 

........................

 

The Waterfront Improvements Plan for the half-mile of shoreline includes a breakwall-protected marina with as many as 200 boat slips and pods of stone or "bin structures" that will protect the sandy beaches. A hiking, biking and walking trail will wind along the shoreline, where high 30-foot bluffs will be transformed into gradually-sloping access to Lake Erie.

 

"This has been 20 years in the planning stage," said Mayor Bill Cervenik. "We want the new pier to be in place before the end of 2011. The rest of the improvements are a 5- to 10-year project."

 

The small beach at Sims Park will be extended to the east, with the proposed marina to be located at the east end of the new lakefront park. The architectural pier design by JJR, a national planning and design firm, calls for an open-air pavilion, concrete deck, wind turbines and a broad fishing platform at its north end. A switchback trail to the fishing pier will be added in the future to provide easier access for disabled visitors.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2011/07/post_8.html

Restoring natural beachfront intertwined with small boardwalk type development could never hurt...and residences.  I am guessing the land under Burke is contaminated. Natural shoreline will never go out of style...  Mix it well with residential/natural areas for buffering and cleaning the water naturally.....and that which draws stakeholders and not just fly by nights drinking and trashing the place, and we've finally got the delicate mix in a city I and many my age seek.  Melbourne, Australia is a perfect example. Even Chicago, right next door. While were at it, let's clean up all the plastic tip cigars and cigarette butts off the beaches. Aside from the other collective impacts that has, it just looks plain nasty.  I know, we're perfect....no room for improvements, though. God forbid we continue to promote high quality shores and water resources. Those environmentalists are just sending the country to hell!  :-D

I'd actually like to see new development for Burke stay away from the Lake.  Make that area to the North something the public can use, such as a park.  I'm not buying into these, IMO, far-fetched plans for mixed use along marginal road.  I would rather the City focus its efforts on the land north of CBS for any new construction.

 

 

I agree with Hts.  I had made this a while back but thought it might be interesting to some people.  The Port side of the "North Harbor Park" might be more difficult to envision...  but the Burke --> Park idea seems like the right idea.  Similar to what NY and Chicago have done with the areas near Lake Michigan/Hudson River.

 

 

 

Wow that'd be so cool. Unfortunately, from what I understand, parts of Burke are really unstable and probably not safe for a park.

^ I've heard people say before that Burke's land is unstable.....yet they land planes on it?!

I recall reading somewhere (for the life of me I cannot remember) and someone correct me if I am wrong, that if development were to take place, they would have to strip layers of topsoil, etc..

 

(Paraphrasing) In addition, for development to take place in the area of the airport, all that pavement/concrete has to be replaced as it cannot be used as a foundation.

 

 

 

I recall reading somewhere (for the life of me I cannot remember) and someone correct me if I am wrong, that if development were to take place, they would have to strip layers of topsoil, etc..

 

 

there would have to be some soil remediation, because of the jet fuel / oil, etc. used on site. Probably not the whole plot of land. Also, they might be able to just cap the effected areas, if they're not planning on building anything other than a park.

I believe the concern is that it was a landfill or something like that before it was an airport.  I don't believe it is natural land, but rather an extension of the natiral shoreline.  And I don't believe that concern would apply to constructing a green space.  It was more addressed at the possibility of significant structures using that land as a foundation.

For reference, the railroad line along the lakefront was built in the 1850s on a manmade shelf below the lakefront's bluff. This view is from the 1890s below what is today East 9th Street (the building above is the old Lakeside Hospital, which then became the site of the Cleveland Press and now the Northpoint office complex)....

 

Great photo KJP.  I always thought how amazing it would be if the natural bluff coastline was restored. The Group Plan would be amazing as City Hall and the Court House are literally at the waters edge.  I know this would never happen but I always thought of the missed planning opportunities landfill provided. I think of the natural bluff parks along the east side of downtown and how they were pushed so far from the lakefront. 

Great photo KJP.  I always thought how amazing it would be if the natural bluff coastline was restored. The Group Plan would be amazing as City Hall and the Court House are literally at the waters edge.  I know this would never happen but I always thought of the missed planning opportunities landfill provided. I think of the natural bluff parks along the east side of downtown and how they were pushed so far from the lakefront. 

 

My first thought at seeing KJP's pic was that I wish I could use a time machine to prevent the destruction of the original beaches!!

 

Unfortunately, the legacy of our coastline is an industrial one. We can't do anything about the past century of abuse. But I am curious about what we can do now and in the future to reclaim our lost beaches.

 

In fact, the current cover of Scene Magazine focuses on this very issue of how blind development adversely affects the coastline.

The Scene Magazine was a great read. Thank you for the fyi on the article

 

Here is a link to another photo/postcard of the original bluff/Lake View Park that GGN proposed for The Group Plan to restore. I am/was 100% for this concept. What a majestic space would be restored if the 2 parking structures were removed. Lastly, is it true most of the landfill of the existing lakefront was from the big dig for The Terminal Tower?

 

http://images.ulib.csuohio.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/postcards&CISOPTR=3928&CISOBOX=1&REC=18

 

http://images.ulib.csuohio.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/postcards&CISOPTR=3929&CISOBOX=1&REC=19

 

http://images.ulib.csuohio.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/postcards&CISOPTR=3934&CISOBOX=1&REC=1

Yep. It's such a shame that they had to put the fill so close to downtown. Some parts of the shoreline near Burke were pushed back almost 0.6 miles from the original coast. In comparison, Central Park in New York City is a half mile wide.

 

As the picture on the previous page shows, Cleveland had a developed shoreline, with buildings lining the bluff along the coast. Lakeside Avenue didn't get its name for nothing. Generations later were forced to decide what to do with all the sediment and fill tossed along the coast. So what we get today is a haphazard collection of a significant landmarks on the city level.

 

In my opinion, this was the biggest blunder in Cleveland's past. Could you imagine what Lakeside Avenue would look like today between W 9th and East 30th if each property was actually on the coast like it was 100 years ago? Could you imagine if you took the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, Great Lakes Science Center, Browns Stadium, Amtrak lines, and RTA's rapid line and sprinkled them into the built original downtown footprint? The infill of the coastal push back increased the "downtown" footprint about 60% (if you consider area bounded by the present innerbelt/Cuyahoga as the downtown footprint). This in effect sprawled out our downtown, and put many new landmarks away from the built environment.

 

This is a huge chunk of "fake land" that each generation has had to deal with. It's not like you can just go back to the old coast (as much as I would love for that to happen). A park might be a good idea for a future plan, if BKL were to ever be decommissioned as an airport, but it would be so far removed from the built downtown. As an example, as the crow flies, the edge of the runway from BKL to Terminal Tower is 2 miles. The edge of the airport property from terminal tower is 2.8 miles. It would truly be a destination park.

I'd say the biggest mistake wasn't extending the coast but putting things on it that don't really utilize the location, and then arranging them haphazardly.  The Rock Hall faces away from the water, with no rear windows.  It's separated from the Science Center by useless lawn, which is separated from the stadium by more useless lawn.  We could have fit a lot more in that space if it had been built more densely. 

1837 Map:

 

 

If you think what we've done since is bad. I have an old map (need to figure out where I have it stored) of a proposal to build a highway on infill from downtown out past Bay Village, essentially wiping out all coastline on the west side! Could you imagine if that had gone forward?!?

Hmm. I can't find the one that shows it going out to Bay Village, but I did find this one which essentially shows the potential path of destruction. The West Shoreway, which for the most part sits inland from industry until it hits the beach cliff near present day Battery Park and Edgewater, would have wrapped around Edgewater Park and then curved up to the actual coastline and been extended for several miles west.

 

I'd say the biggest mistake wasn't extending the coast but putting things on it that don't really utilize the location, and then arranging them haphazardly.  The Rock Hall faces away from the water, with no rear windows.  It's separated from the Science Center by useless lawn, which is separated from the stadium by more useless lawn.  We could have fit a lot more in that space if it had been built more densely. 

 

I would also agree with that. But we are also talking about huge swaths of land which makes density difficult. I feel it sort of came down to, "we've got this huge expanse of land, let's sprinkle some stuff on it."

 

I think that's partially why our current developed lakefront feels so disjointed from the rest of the city. Creating density on such a huge tract of land is difficult. We've seen that play out with the Flats East Bank. The Jane Campbell future lakefront plans from the previous administration brought forth a lot of density, but it doesn't happen over night. I think once the development ball gets rolling in this area, everything is going to feel disjointed and out of place for several decades. You will have pockets of density, then wide swaths of port space and parking lots, until it eventually fills out. And that's not even considering what to do with the land in front of Burke and along Marginal, let alone the airport itself. Creating moderate density on all of these tracts of land is a 50-75 year realistic goal.

 

I do think there is one silver lining to having all this "available" land so close to the urban core. We can't predict the transit situation 10-20-30 years from now. We can't predict if/when suburbia will reach its peak and there is a movement back to the city. But let's say in the not too distant future there is a need for density and living close to the urban core. Cleveland will have the advantage of having a huge parcel of empty space sitting peacefully next to downtown with 2 miles of water frontage to develop. What will other cities have? Cleveland also has something very few other American cities have the ability to do ... expand physically without annexing. With such a shallow lakebed, there's no reason you couldn't artificially create a new lakefront a half mile out, and then once that goes out of style, build a new one another half mile out. ;)

Why do we always assume that people before us were stupid? I have posted several times the fact that we have a northern shoreline.  This is not trivial.  We own a cottage right on Lake Erie (30 ft from the water).  Most people visit the lake on beautiful summer days.  They see the lake as an ocean.  I understand that, but they do not understand what the weather is like on the lake, not only in the winter, but also in the summer!

 

We had some friends come to our cottage in June for a day on the lake with a barbeque.  It was a beautiful day until out of no where a tremendous wind came and we had to take down all of the deck furniture and move the whole thing inside.  This was June!!  I can tell similar stories when visiting the Rock Hall or attending a Browns game.  I love going to the cottage in the winter, it is spectacular but not for the "weak of heart". 

 

It is extremely difficult to create a workable business model for a restaurant or most other businesses on our NORTHERN shoreline of Lake Erie.  To be honest, I do not think that most people could handle living on the Lake even if the housing was more affordable.  It is different from what people think.

 

Why do we always assume that people before us were stupid? I have posted several times the fact that we have a northern shoreline.  This is not trivial.  We own a cottage right on Lake Erie (30 ft from the water).  Most people visit the lake on beautiful summer days.  They see the lake as an ocean.  I understand that, but they do not understand what the weather is like on the lake, not only in the winter, but also in the summer!

 

We had some friends come to our cottage in June for a day on the lake with a barbeque.  It was a beautiful day until out of no where a tremendous wind came and we had to take down all of the deck furniture and move the whole thing inside.  This was June!!  I can tell similar stories when visiting the Rock Hall or attending a Browns game.  I love going to the cottage in the winter, it is spectacular but not for the "weak of heart". 

 

It is extremely difficult to create a workable business model for a restaurant or most other businesses on our NORTHERN shoreline of Lake Erie.  To be honest, I do not think that most people could handle living on the Lake even if the housing was more affordable.  It is different from what people think.

 

 

It's not difficult, look at Cedar Point.

 

Most of Cuyahoga County already has homes and businesses along the lakefront ... the big exception being the CBD of Cleveland. Mid rise apartments along Edgewater Drive have 1000s of residents who love where they live. There's no logical reason that development can't succeed downtown along the lake because of weather/harsh conditions when tens of thousands of Cuyahoga County residents already live happily within a few feet of the shore.

I think the northern wind makes a lot of Miami-style waterfront attractions unworkable here, but that has no bearing on larger apartment buildings, which our shore should be lined with.  Gold Coast is the perfect model.  Collinwood is the anti-model, with bungalows and private parks along dead-end streets.  It's like they didn't even realize the lake was there.  Collinwood even has a freaking trailer park on the coast.  If it's perfectly appropriate for a random hamlet in West Virginia, then it's not at all appropriate for a major city's waterfront.

It's not difficult, look at Cedar Point.

 

And what time of year is Cedar Point open?