Opinion

1.Tear down the Browns Stadium to make room for more lakefront development.

2. Build more office buildings on the Port like Flats East Bank height or higher along with mixed use development and port activity.

 

regarding building heights, keep in mind they can't be too high given the runways at BKL. Without doing any calculations, though, ten stories would probably be okay.

 

If I recall correctly the new pedestrian bridge linking Voinovich Park to this area had to be scaled back due to FAA regulations. The original proposal (which was an amazing piece of architecture) was 145 feet tall. It was canned and so now we will have a 71' tall bridge instead. I'm sure that building heights can gradually increase the farther you get away from the runway, but based on what the FAA said for the nearby bridge, I can't see these buildings being more than 6 stories max just to the north of the Science Center.

 

The good news is that this bridge is scheduled to start construction next summer, so we will have development already beginning in the not too distant future. :)

 

^ to refresh everyone's memory on the bridge:

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2011/06/a_trio_of_pedestrian_bridges_p.html

Speaking of bridges I wish they would have kept the one that was part of the Great Lakes Exposition, built for a staggering cost of 80k. We could have been using it all these years. (sighs)

Maybe, maybe not.  A lot of exposition architecture was just plaster, so it looked real nice- for a little while.

^Would have been neat if they kept it and renovated it.

I'm saying they would probably have had to rebuild it completely, of actual masonry and metal.  Not for $80k.

True. $80,000 then is almost $1 million today, and I doubt we could build a substantial, lasting version of the Great Lakes Exposition bridge for $1 million today. Maybe $10 million.

Was that E 9th or W 3rd?

True. $80,000 then is almost $1 million today, and I doubt we could build a substantial, lasting version of the Great Lakes Exposition bridge for $1 million today. Maybe $10 million.

 

Exactly. Likewise, the most stunning architecture of the Chicago World's Fair was actually made of straw.

 

Still, I'm with Freethink. It would be amazing to still have that vision of pride and grandeur restored at the bridge. Plus it's nice to see how it was so scaled to pedestrians.

 

I'd be all for new construction that celebrated that amazing history of the Great Lakes Exhibition.

Was that E 9th or W 3rd?

 

Actually neither, the bridge came right off of Mall C. You can see it in this rendering.

Some interesting stuff on Design Review's agenda for this week.....

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2011/11182011/index.php

 

Consolidated Lakefront Plans

Project Location: Cleveland Lakefront

Project Representatives: TBD

MANDATORY REFERRAL

 

Ordinance No. XXX-11(Ward 3/Councilman Cimperman): Authorizing the Director of Port Control to enter into a Third Amendment to the Dock Lease to extend the term and return Docks 30 and 28B early to the City and a contract with the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority to designate them to perform certain Harbormaster duties.

 

Ordinance No. XXX-11(Ward 3/Councilman Cimperman): To repeal certain sections of the Codified Ordinances of Cleveland Ohio 1976, Chapter 573-Harbors, as amended and enacted by various ordinances relating to duties of the Harbormaster and penalties; and to add new sections to clarify and streamline Chapter 573.

 

Ordinance No. XXX-11(Ward 3/Councilman Cimperman): Authorizing the Mayor and Directors of Public Works and Port Control to enter into a Third Amendment and Restatement to Common Area Maintenance Agreement No. 48828 with the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum, Inc., the Great Lakes Museum of Science, Environment and Technology, and the Cleveland Browns Stadium Company LLC (“Stakeholders”), to replace the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority as manager, to employ consultants, expend funds, and purchase insurance for the Common Area as required; to establish a CAM special revenue fund and authorizing contracts and leases to operate, maintain and manage the Common Areas.

 

Ordinance No. XXX-11(Ward 3/Councilman Cimperman): Terminating the Cooperative Agreement between the City of Cleveland and the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority regarding the use of the proceeds generated from activities at North Coast Harbor and to transfer the balance of funds held by the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority to the City of Cleveland; to establish a North Coast Harbor Asset Management special revenue fund and authorizing contracts and leases to operate, maintain and manage North Coast Harbor.

 

###

http://www.clevescene.com/cleveland/wet-dreams/Content?oid=2766147

 

"The truth is, Jackson had one of the biggest opportunities of any recent mayor to develop the lakefront, and he blew it when Eaton Corporation opted to build its new headquarters in Beachwood rather than on the lakeshore."

 

What does this refer to? Did Eaton contemplate a new, lakefront HQ? What happened to discourage it?

I think there was an idea of them going in-between the curve of the the waterfront line's tracks in the East Bank of the flats. Not really lakeshore, but they were selling it as that.

What happened to discourage it is that the old white men at Eaton weren't interested in staying downtown, no matter what Jackson attempted aside from giving away the store.

Well Eaton wanted more land. The amount of land they bought in beachwood is a lot more than they could have gotten anywhere downtown. But the real reason is because all the executives live on the East Side. As my dad always said, a company's HQ is where the execs want to live.

Like I said, there aren't many old white men living downtown. Worse, many can't understand why anyone would want to work downtown, much less live there. Youthful, vibrant, entrepreneurial companies want to be downtown where they can network and share ideas. Old, stodgy, insular companies like Eaton seek suburban bunkers surrounded by golf course-like campuses as if that will enable networking and idea-sharing. It won't.

 

Their plan for the lakefront space wouldn't have created a land use pattern which fosters the inherent networking benefits of downtown. It was hidden within the high concrete walls of the Waterfront Line loop and had little potential interaction with the Flats East Bank project. Its design was far too "inward" looking which tells me a lot about Eaton. Their Beachwood site plan only reaffirmed it.

 

More well-connected land use plans for that Waterfront loop site included the World Trade Center design of the 1990s, or one of the alternate site locations for the convention center offered about 10 years ago. Each acknowledged that there was a city beyond the loop that they wanted to be a part of and interact with. Eaton didn't. So goodbye Eaton. Have fun going out to pasture....

As I recall, Eaton's demands for their new campus in the flats looked a lot like a ransom note with requirements the city could not possibly meet.  I doubt the site was ever actually in the running.

Like I said, there aren't many old white men living downtown. Worse, many can't understand why anyone would want to work downtown, much less live there. Youthful, vibrant, entrepreneurial companies want to be downtown where they can network and share ideas. Old, stodgy, insular companies like Eaton seek suburban bunkers surrounded by golf course-like campuses as if that will enable networking and idea-sharing. It won't.

 

Their plan for the lakefront space wouldn't have created a land use pattern which fosters the inherent networking benefits of downtown. It was hidden within the high concrete walls of the Waterfront Line loop and had little potential interaction with the Flats East Bank project. Its design was far too "inward" looking which tells me a lot about Eaton. Their Beachwood site plan only reaffirmed it.

 

More well-connected land use plans for that Waterfront loop site included the World Trade Center design of the 1990s, or one of the alternate site locations for the convention center offered about 10 years ago. Each acknowledged that there was a city beyond the loop that they wanted to be a part of and interact with. Eaton didn't. So goodbye Eaton. Have fun going out to pasture....

With our new global focus (ABOUT TIME!) is it possible that the Cleveland WTC could now happen on the lakefront? Just curious.

As I recall, Eaton's demands for their new campus in the flats looked a lot like a ransom note with requirements the city could not possibly meet.  I doubt the site was ever actually in the running.

 

Probably not. I think I'm commenting more about the design of the headquarters as a statement the company is trying to make about itself which is that it is inward and insular.

 

To keep this on topic, that's not the kind of design I would want on Cleveland's lakefront. Don't get me wrong -- I would have loved to keep Eaton downtown. But this is a thread about the lakefront and Eaton's view of itself and the city didn't belong there, IMHO.

Anyone else think that Sears would do nicely in that proposed "Nike-esque" campus the new lakefront project calls for Burke?

 

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/business/2011/12/01/a-400m-carrot-for-sears-ohio-bids-for-hq.html

Definitely. However, it seems like wishful thinking since only Columbus, Oh and Austin Texas are in the running.

 

 

http://www.cleveland.com/strongsville/index.ssf/2011/12/fitzgerald_blasts_citys_lakefr.html

 

"Cuyahoga County Executive Ed FitzGerald criticized a 90-acre development plan by Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson that would include hotels, retail space, and restaurants, questioning the sources of funding and the likelihood it could ever get built."

Is it just me or has residential seemingly dropped out of the conversation for the Lakefront plans??

 

 

http://www.cleveland.com/strongsville/index.ssf/2011/12/fitzgerald_blasts_citys_lakefr.html

 

"Cuyahoga County Executive Ed FitzGerald criticized a 90-acre development plan by Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson that would include hotels, retail space, and restaurants, questioning the sources of funding and the likelihood it could ever get built."

 

I have been fairly impressed with the progress made by Fitzgerald thus far, but he's got me scratching my head on this one. He says that the current lakefront is, "horrible, egregious example of urban planning in the world", which I would probably agree with, and then goes on to blast the Mayor's plan to revitalize it?

"Cuyahoga County Executive Ed FitzGerald criticized a 90-acre development plan by Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson that would include hotels, retail space, and restaurants, questioning the sources of funding and the likelihood it could ever get built."

 

Looks to me more like lousy or biased reporting by the PD.  :drunk:

 

Despite the headline, the only criticism seems to be about the likelihood of obtaining funding for the project.  That has been a major problem for every lakefront plan proposed in the last twenty-plus years.  I couldn't find anything in that article that suggested that Fitz actually didn't like what was proposed for the lakefront.  The article seems to say that he criticized the current state of the lakefront, not the plan for the future.   

 

It's a chance to report on conflict, controversy, dissension, etc. Conflict makes for a good story. And good stories sell newspapers.

 

Or at least they used to.....

^ Totally agree. Stupid headline. Reminds me of ESPN.

 

His 'criticisms' were of all those who had failed to do anything, not Jackson. His concern for funding - that's his job, no?

^Actually I think his "job" should be to be creative and find a way to come up with funding, or at least do his best.

I have to agree with FitzGerald. I dont like the Lakefront plan at all! The whole plan looked messy and not very connected. Burke and the Port really are preventing anything worth the while as far as development goes. I feel it was a huge mistake to put Burke on the lakefront for sure. I also hope that the Port decides to let the flats east bank project expand northward so that it is ACTUALLY touching the lake....If thats not possible, then whats the point of the Lakefront plan?

^ I think it's a great plan, considering the fact that we can't build on burke or on the land the west of the browns stadium. Maybe someday we'll be able to develop that land, but we need to move one step at a time.

I have to agree with FitzGerald. I dont like the Lakefront plan at all! The whole plan looked messy and not very connected. Burke and the Port really are preventing anything worth the while as far as development goes. I feel it was a huge mistake to put Burke on the lakefront for sure. I also hope that the Port decides to let the flats east bank project expand northward so that it is ACTUALLY touching the lake....If thats not possible, then whats the point of the Lakefront plan?

 

Burke wrongly located?  Maybe you're right, but that train has left the station.  Frank Jackson is against closing it, and evidence suggests a lengthy red-tape battle with the (Federal) FAA in order to close Burke, so we might as well live with it.  As we've seen, with evvents like the Tall Ships, people will flock to the area if there are worthwhile attractions... I'm willing to give this plan a shot.  Jackson's modest-plan approach is most likely doable.  As we've seen, sadly, Cleveland trouble pulling off large-scale projects -- you have to go back to Terminal Tower (Tower City) Group, the starting of the Red Line Rapid, or the Mall Group (which stretched over 3 decades), to see that... Perhaps you could throw in the Gateway Stadiums as more recent evidence...

^ That's right. I am so sick of this focus on the grandiose around here... when the simple cannot even be completed...  take the baby steps first...  Also tired of this airport being ridiculed. It can actually be an asset and compliment to the lakefront. There is plenty of room along he river and current lakefront areas to build a great lakefront..  Quit harping on Burke's closing...  I wonder how many people who actually want this grand lakefront and all these elements, would actually support the businesses and venues it can offer besides stuffing the face venues and drinking holes.

Perhaps you could throw in the Gateway Stadiums as more recent evidence...

 

Or the medical mart/convention center? Or the Flats East Bank project? Or the casino? Or the Inner Belt (OK, opinions vary)? Or the office complexes being built/rebuilt on spec in Midtown? Or the Cleveland Clinic's/UH's latest big building? There's plenty of examples of big projects out there, and many of them are very recent or underway. I know its fashionable to doubt ourselves/Cleveland sometimes, but it's often not earned.

KJP, I'd argue that the majority of your list falls under what EC is calling "baby steps".  FEB is a tiny fraction of even this Lakefront plan, which is actually modest by comparison to some of the previous ideas floated.  Building a casino in Higbee, or some CC/UH building is not a large scale project, it's small scale.  FEB is medium-scale, Pesht was large scale.  These are the baby steps, and very important, and because of their scale are easier to pull off. I don't think we should pretend that our recent history is good on large scale projects. 

Having worked on projects with price tags in the millions (not tens of millions or higher), I disagree that the projects I cited above (with price tags in the hundreds of millions) are baby steps. But that's just my perspective.

KJP, I'd argue that the majority of your list falls under what EC is calling "baby steps".  FEB is a tiny fraction of even this Lakefront plan, which is actually modest by comparison to some of the previous ideas floated.  Building a casino in Higbee, or some CC/UH building is not a large scale project, it's small scale.  FEB is medium-scale, Pesht was large scale.  These are the baby steps, and very important, and because of their scale are easier to pull off. I don't think we should pretend that our recent history is good on large scale projects. 

There is a big difference between "large projects" and "master plans".  Large projects are the projects that KJP cited.  Master plans are plans developed by planners (not engineers) paid for by a municipalty to spark the interest of private developers, property managers and owners to include a "large project" within the "master plan". 

Fair enough.  I tend to agree with the sentiment, though, that focus and nitpicking on these master plans or whatever, burns a lot of calories for very little reward.  That Cleveland.com headline pissed me off because it lead down one path and then there was nothing in the story.  In the end I suppose anyone can pay for a master plan, but there has been quite a bit of failure in creating an environment where the vision of the plan can become a reality, especially where the lakefront is concerned.  The back and forth about keep-the-port, move-the-port alone has been annoying.  Maybe that's the way it has to be, but I'm tired of rooster-teases.

Maybe that's the way it has to be, but I'm tired of rooster-teases.

 

Awesome!

 

Foghorn Leghorn wacks the dog

Cleveland City Council has received several ordinances from the law department that would do several things to improve the marketability of its 20 acres land north of Brown Stadium:

 

1. terminate the leases with the port authority. This has the approval of the port authority. It would save the port authority $400,000 per year, and cost the city $400,000 per year. But terminating the leases makes the land available and more attractive to developers.

2. the city's Division of Port Control (same folks who run Hopkins and Burke airports) would maintain common areas at North Coast Harbor as a special improvement district funded by property users.

3. the port authority will maintain lake/river bulkheads since they already have a working relationship with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

 

It will take about two months for these ordinances to go through City Council's committee process and the usual public readings at three separate regular council meetings before it is up for approval.

Can't find a thread for it, but what's being built on e 9th across the street from rock hall: it's gOvt/military land if I'm not mistaken. The bldg is fairly big yet not seeing a discussion on it.

Coast Guard Ninth District Headquarters, I believe.

Coast Guard Ninth District Headquarters, I believe.

 

Correct.

 

BTW, the land that the city wants to put on the market won't be as much as 20 acres. Instead the city apparently is only putting two parcels on the market (not all three that are north of the stadium). Instead, it appears to be more like 14 acres that would become available.

City council was talking about the lakefront plan today...anyone know the nature of the discussion?

City council was talking about the lakefront plan today...anyone know the nature of the discussion?

 

This....

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,3638.msg596086.html#msg596086

 

....Or, just scroll upward to a few messages earlier. :)

Uh oh...

 

Cleveland Browns want city to spend $5.8 million for stadium repairs

Published: Wednesday, January 18, 2012, 6:30 PM    Updated: Thursday, January 19, 2012, 1:16 AM

Thomas Ott, The Plain Dealer

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The Cleveland Browns want the city to give the team seven years of football stadium repair money -- $5.8 million -- right now.

 

The team contends the work is necessary to maintain a 12-year-old stadium battered by a sometimes harsh northern climate, and it has asked for an exception to a 30-year lease that calls for the city to set aside $850,000 a year for major repairs.

 

Under the complicated proposal, the Browns would get this year's $850,000 plus $5 million from the next six years of repair money drawn from the tax revenue collected countywide on alcohol and tobacco sales and administered by the city. In exchange, the city would not have to make its annual contributions from the tax money to a stadium repair fund for the next six years.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2012/01/browns_want_to_spend_58_millio.html

Randy should get on the phone and call JG Wentworth. 

Uh oh...

 

Cleveland Browns want city to spend $5.8 million for stadium repairs

Published: Wednesday, January 18, 2012, 6:30 PM    Updated: Thursday, January 19, 2012, 1:16 AM

Thomas Ott, The Plain Dealer

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The Cleveland Browns want the city to give the team seven years of football stadium repair money -- $5.8 million -- right now.

 

The team contends the work is necessary to maintain a 12-year-old stadium battered by a sometimes harsh northern climate, and it has asked for an exception to a 30-year lease that calls for the city to set aside $850,000 a year for major repairs.

 

Under the complicated proposal, the Browns would get this year's $850,000 plus $5 million from the next six years of repair money drawn from the tax revenue collected countywide on alcohol and tobacco sales and administered by the city. In exchange, the city would not have to make its annual contributions from the tax money to a stadium repair fund for the next six years.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2012/01/browns_want_to_spend_58_millio.html

Hope He Doesn't Move The Team!!!  :laugh:

Uh oh...

 

Cleveland Browns want city to spend $5.8 million for stadium repairs

Published: Wednesday, January 18, 2012, 6:30 PM    Updated: Thursday, January 19, 2012, 1:16 AM

Thomas Ott, The Plain Dealer

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The Cleveland Browns want the city to give the team seven years of football stadium repair money -- $5.8 million -- right now.

 

The team contends the work is necessary to maintain a 12-year-old stadium battered by a sometimes harsh northern climate, and it has asked for an exception to a 30-year lease that calls for the city to set aside $850,000 a year for major repairs.

 

Under the complicated proposal, the Browns would get this year's $850,000 plus $5 million from the next six years of repair money drawn from the tax revenue collected countywide on alcohol and tobacco sales and administered by the city. In exchange, the city would not have to make its annual contributions from the tax money to a stadium repair fund for the next six years.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2012/01/browns_want_to_spend_58_millio.html

Hope He Doesn't Move The Team!!!  :laugh:

I'm surprised he remembers he has a team

OK folks, we have a Cleveland Browns thread for team-related comments.