Lakefront Plan Approved

 

Finally this is about to get off of the ground it is looong overdue!!! Looking at the drawings in the video I would say this is an impressive plan that is in place and 5-10 years for development to be complete isn't too bad!

 

http://fox8.com/2012/03/19/clevelands-lakefront-plan-put-to-a-vote/

 

Translation:

 

This will happen over a 15 year period and people will look back and complain that upon ground breaking the area was not immediately transformed and that we were promised one thing and the final product is another.

 

Mark my words!

 

MTS...out!

^ You mean financing wont be found and the project wont be completed by next year?! WTF! Business as usual. Thats the reason Cleveland sucks! :-P

Here's an image of the proposed Lakefront plans from the cleveland.com story.  Just figured that I'd post a quick reply with the plans so people dont have to link to the story to check out the image.

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2012/03/cleveland_council_oks_lakefron.html

How often is Burke Lakefront used?  Wouldn't that be kinda...a problem...for folks working or staying in that Harbor West development?

really, the only things i want to see are building at the old skate park, building where the parking is at the goodtime III, the connector between the science center and rock hall and maybe the bridge.  I want the harbor to have as much as possible, i don't really care much about the space north of the stadium.

I like everything about this plan except for the far east stuff. That office park seems a bit out of place, do we really need an office park in that location? The Parkway concept seems a bit out of place as well. Would that be new residential apartment buildings on the current muni lot? Wouldn't be my first choice as a place to add residential downtown. With a busy freight rail line behind that, a highway in front of that, and a proposed office park beyond, those buildings would feel like no man's land compared to the rest of downtown. I would have liked to have seen this plan somehow extend the avenue district northward into the muni lot (pedestrian bridge or what have you) and mesh into North Coast Harbor instead. There's a huge opportunity to build this district up that the city is missing here. 

 

 

 

 

Why is the Shoreway still an interchange with East 9th? Is it because ODOT is broke and can't spend any money anymore, especially to downgrade a limited-access highway into a tree-line urban boulevard/parkway?

 

And ANOTHER parking deck on the lakefront -- referring to the deck between the Shoreway and the East 9th Waterfront Line station. This should be a transportation center uniting Greyhound, Amtrak, RTA buses and trains, Laketran, Akron Metro RTA and PARTA (KSU) buses....

 

 

 

really, the only things i want to see are building at the old skate park, building where the parking is at the goodtime III, the connector between the science center and rock hall and maybe the bridge.  I want the harbor to have as much as possible, i don't really care much about the space north of the stadium.

 

Well I think that space north of the Browns Stadium really needs this. Right now you walk down there and are met with some port buildings, the huge parking lot, and its all fenced off and there are what seems like millions of seagulls covering the buildings.  If a hotel or something was built there it would be right on the lakefront, I think there's a lot of potential.

I think on top of one of those buildings north of Browns Stadium should be the start of a zip line to Canada. Screw the old "Bridge To Canada" that Gov. Roads, er, Rhodes once proposed. Or the silly tunnel to Canada that Toledo's own Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur is proposing even now....

Why is the Shoreway still an interchange with East 9th? Is it because ODOT is broke and can't spend any money anymore, especially to downgrade a limited-access highway into a tree-line urban boulevard/parkway?

 

 

I think the old beach cliff there would make it quite difficult to have an on grade intersection. It would also be one heck of a huge intersection and wouldn't be pedestrian friendly at all. Right now, it's rather easy to walk down there. You just have to cross a 2 lane section (which is one way), then the overpass, then another 2 lane (one way) section. Otherwise it would be an 8 lane mess to cross with a multitude of turning lanes. The current set-up really breaks up the traffic flow and makes it convenient for pedestrians.

I think the old beach cliff there would make it quite difficult to have an on grade intersection. It would also be one heck of a huge intersection and wouldn't be pedestrian friendly at all. Right now, it's rather easy to walk down there. You just have to cross a 2 lane section (which is one way), then the overpass, then another 2 lane (one way) section. Otherwise it would be an 8 lane mess to cross with a multitude of turning lanes. The current set-up really breaks up the traffic flow and makes it convenient for pedestrians.

 

Except that the Shoreway descends from the bridge over West 3rd and points west, to below East 9th. The descent could stop midway between West 3rd and East 9th, then ramp down gradually east of there.

 

And I agree that a lot of Shoreway traffic turns at East 9th, which is why East 18th needs to be extended to the Shoreway to take pressure off it. That might also encourage more residential and office development farther east along the bluff.

I hope as far as the "office park" goes, it doesn't look like the buildings that Pittsburgh has put on their North Shore.  They look like they belong in Cranberry, or if you're not familiar with Pittsburgh, something out in Westlake.

I think the old beach cliff there would make it quite difficult to have an on grade intersection. It would also be one heck of a huge intersection and wouldn't be pedestrian friendly at all. Right now, it's rather easy to walk down there. You just have to cross a 2 lane section (which is one way), then the overpass, then another 2 lane (one way) section. Otherwise it would be an 8 lane mess to cross with a multitude of turning lanes. The current set-up really breaks up the traffic flow and makes it convenient for pedestrians.

 

Except that the Shoreway descends from the bridge over West 3rd and points west, to below East 9th. The descent could stop midway between West 3rd and East 9th, then ramp down gradually east of there.

 

And I agree that a lot of Shoreway traffic turns at East 9th, which is why East 18th needs to be extended to the Shoreway to take pressure off it. That might also encourage more residential and office development farther east along the bluff.

 

East 18th is where the rapid loop should go! They could build a CSU/Playhouse square rapid station on that useless grass lot next to the Urban Studies building.

East 18th is where the rapid loop should go! They could build a CSU/Playhouse square rapid station on that useless grass lot next to the Urban Studies building.

 

Why not do both? Make the rail and highway construction contractors equally happy!!

I think on top of one of those buildings north of Browns Stadium should be the start of a zip line to Canada. Screw the old "Bridge To Canada" that Gov. Roads, er, Rhodes once proposed. Or the silly tunnel to Canada that Toledo's own Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur is proposing even now....

 

I would be down for that. It would be our own chunnel. And about the same distance if it began in Cleveland over to Port Stanley. And it could have a rail line right down the center. I mean if Romney/Boston got the feds to pay 95% of the Big Dig, then why not us? Besides I always loved the bridge to Canada idea, of course  I loved the Jetport idea also.

How often is Burke Lakefront used? 

 

Not enough to justify it's continued existence.

 

Oops...

 

 

I like everything about this plan except for the far east stuff. That office park seems a bit out of place, do we really need an office park in that location? The Parkway concept seems a bit out of place as well. Would that be new residential apartment buildings on the current muni lot? Wouldn't be my first choice as a place to add residential downtown. With a busy freight rail line behind that, a highway in front of that, and a proposed office park beyond, those buildings would feel like no man's land compared to the rest of downtown. I would have liked to have seen this plan somehow extend the avenue district northward into the muni lot (pedestrian bridge or what have you) and mesh into North Coast Harbor instead. There's a huge opportunity to build this district up that the city is missing here. 

 

The Muni lot buildings are just a "we could put something here" placeholder for the more or less distant future.  There is no specific program for them, nor do they necessarily have to be laid out like that.  They are more likely to be offices than residential, but can be whatever there is a market for.  This is per what was said at the community meeting when the plan was unveiled.

How often is Burke Lakefront used? 

 

Not enough to justify it's continued existence.

 

Oops...

 

 

 

I'm going to disagree.  What is considered, Not enough"? and what do you do with the traffic?

 

How often is Burke Lakefront used?

 

Not enough to justify it's continued existence.

 

We need BKL. Total operations (itinerant and local) by year:

 

2007: 68,139

2008: 69,231

2009: 57,432

2010: 53,987

2011: 54,288

 

Operations dipped with the economy but will come back.

 

I still really want that Ferris wheel!! I suppose the pier isn't a good place for one though considering an airplane will fly into it every few minutes.  Any ideas for Ferris wheel placement?

Middle of the Lake?

Convention Center. If the I-X Center can have one, why not the MM/CC??

On or in?  Feel like if we have a Ferris wheel it's got to be for the views.  Or maybe a Tower of Power type thing?

I still really want that Ferris wheel!! I suppose the pier isn't a good place for one though considering an airplane will fly into it every few minutes.  Any ideas for Ferris wheel placement?

 

I really hope the stupid name "Festival Pier" doesn't really get implemented. Makes us sounds like a small town of simpletons. It should be called what it is: E. 9 St. Pier!

 

I still really want that Ferris wheel!! I suppose the pier isn't a good place for one though considering an airplane will fly into it every few minutes.  Any ideas for Ferris wheel placement?

 

I really hope the stupid name "Festival Pier" doesn't really get implemented. Makes us sounds like a small town of simpletons. It should be called what it is: E. 9 St. Pier!

 

 

I'd give them a pass on festival pier if the city or private entities actually promotes festivals on it.  Like the good ole days of Riverfest and Coffee Break Concerts!

I say we give a nod to history and call it Captain Franks' Pier. Maybe The Sidewheelers' Docks. Then people who ask why it is called those things will get another installment of a Cleveland history lesson.

 

http://www.shorpy.com/node/9256

 

City of Cleveland III sidewheel steamship...

^Screw my Ferris Wheel, let's get that back!

^Catching fire twice and a collision with a Norwegian freighter?  A tough life for the City of Cleveland...

I still really want that Ferris wheel!! I suppose the pier isn't a good place for one though considering an airplane will fly into it every few minutes.  Any ideas for Ferris wheel placement?

 

I really hope the stupid name "Festival Pier" doesn't really get implemented. Makes us sounds like a small town of simpletons. It should be called what it is: E. 9 St. Pier!

 

 

I agree. I hate any idea relating to this being some sort of attraction. (I also hope that there is no ferris wheel. (is this a joke im missing or actually a proposal?)). The last thing I want to see is a scaled down Navy Pier. If the city is going to go ahead and support it as a nice, mixed use development, we actually want people to live, work and interact with the space. Navy pier does not cater to the people of Chicago and this should not follow in those footsteps. The name "festival pier" implies that its a place for one-time activities and attractions, not necessarily a place to live.

 

Also, does anyone know how the city is working with developers? Or what the process behind that would be?

 

Lastly, Sorry for making this my first post in 2 years or so. I've been creeping on UO since then but I finally moved back to Ohio this last year and should be returning to Cleveland by December (if I can get my thesis done by then! Fingers crossed!)

^Welcome Back

We really need 2 or 3 decent restaurants down there in the next year or two to really jumpstart this area. Right now, it is just mainly a disconnected tourist spot. What local (outside of taking a walk on their lunch hour) ventures down there? No one just says, "hey let's go down to the Rock Hall", that area is strictly something people in the region do once in their life and then reserve for when they have friends/family visiting from out of town.

 

So a small handful of attractions added in the next year or two, such as 2 or 3 restaurants and perhaps a summer concert series could do numbers in making this a destination for locals, and subsequently spurring off shoot development as the plan lays out.

^ Excellent points.

 

Ya know when I moved here in early 90's North Coast Harbor was a really happening spot during the summers. People made their way down there in droves for rock concerts on this floating stage.

 

There was no Rock Hall. No science center. No Voinovich Park. It wasn't even nice it was kind of a dump.

 

It was just a cool place to hang out with a loose, welcoming vibe.

 

Today, NCH is technically much nicer and boasts two heavyweight attractions. But at the same time, it's turned into a very sterile, unexciting environment. It's just weird how things evolve.

The Rock Hall had done a free outdoor summer concert series outside in their plaza for at least the past four years on Tuesdays with 2-3 bands. Quite a few downtown and nearby residents head down there for the concert. Good turnout. You see a lot of bicycles. Last year, the food trucks were present. It is a really nice event. Beer and wine are available to purchase, and I forget exactly, but they are reasonably priced.

I did a quick search and didnt see anything online about 2012 concerts down there.  I realize it isnt really summer yet, but any idea if they'll have those concerts again this year??

Too early to tell about the 2012 concerts. They probably haven't even booked the bands. Here is a link to the 2011 information to get an idea: http://rockhall.com/events/summer-sessions/

 

ParkWorks did some summer programming on the Mall with free outdoor movies, but I think it ended in 2007. It was really nice and so underutilized!  That would be something great to brink back downtown and possibly on the lakefront.

One thing I really liked in the NPR "Sound of Ideas" recent discussion on Downtown's Resurgence, was the discussion about the appropriate reach and scale of the current lakefront project.

 

I have been saying for years and plenty of very early posts in this thread, "why focus so much on Burke, when there is all this available unused land around the Brown's Stadium, and opportunity in and around the harbor?" This isn't to say I like having Burke there. As the current plan and discussions have suggested, there is so much to develop and improve without having to jump through hoops to close Burke.

One thing I really liked in the NPR "Sound of Ideas" recent discussion on Downtown's Resurgence, was the discussion about the appropriate reach and scale of the current lakefront project.

 

I have been saying for years and plenty of very early posts in this thread, "why focus so much on Burke, when there is all this available unused land around the Brown's Stadium, and opportunity in and around the harbor?" This isn't to say I like having Burke there. As the current plan and discussions have suggested, there is so much to develop and improve without having to jump through hoops to close Burke.

 

Agreed.  In addition, people fail to realize that air traffic has to go somewhere and most likely it will be Hopkins.  There for cause delays and backups.

I've been no fan of Burke in the past. But I have to say I'm a bit won over by the plan involving the air park offices and observatory. Pretty sharp imho. Plus, it's the stability regarding the Port and the airport that's allowing this all to move forward.

 

And as Vulpster mentioned, there is ample opportunity around the stadium and current attractions to make drastic improvements.

The free outdoor movies were amazing. Sitting in the middle of the city surrounded by all the tall buildings. I was really bummed out when they ended them. Summer of 2008 was the last year.

As more changes are made to downtown (more condos & apartments, MM & Convention Center and its out of town hotel visitors, etc.) I could see a demand for something similar to the outdoor movies in the near future.  Seems like a good way to draw people into downtown or draw people that are downtown out into the city.

 

It could be combined with the outdoor concerts.  One week a movie, the next a concert, the next a movie ...

I've been no fan of Burke in the past. But I have to say I'm a bit won over by the plan involving the air park offices and observatory. Pretty sharp imho. Plus, it's the stability regarding the Port and the airport that's allowing this all to move forward.

 

And as Vulpster mentioned, there is ample opportunity around the stadium and current attractions to make drastic improvements.

 

I am a fan of Burke and wish the city would use it even more as a development tool.  There are not many central business districts left with that kind of convenient air access.  I would offer free landing fees as a part of a tax & incentive package to locate your company HQ downtown.  There is plenty of land available around Burke that we can focus on before worrying about getting rid of the airport.

I am a fan of Burke and wish the city would use it even more as a development tool.  There are not many central business districts left with that kind of convenient air access.  I would offer free landing fees as a part of a tax & incentive package to locate your company HQ downtown.  There is plenty of land available around Burke that we can focus on before worrying about getting rid of the airport.

 

 

I'm not sure of the specifics, but arent there some issues with building on the Burke site because it was some sort of a landfill??  If that's the case, then what can really be "built" there on that site anyways??  So if we cant build on the airport site, then we might as well just focus on the areas around the airport.

A few posts up I mentioned that  the Great Lakes Exposition should be the template for the Lakefront. Well, I also think it could be used along the Irishtown section of river where the skate park is going.

 

Anyhow, visually - this is what I meant. This is what we're missing.

 

http://photos.cleveland.com/plain-dealer/2011/05/great_lakes_exposition_1936_2.html

 

^If you're talking about the hats I completely agree! What ever happened to hats?!  :-D

^If you're talking about the hats I completely agree! What ever happened to hats?!  :-D

 

Fact: they were snazzy.

Work on the pedestrian bridge linking the lakefront with Voinovich Park could start at the end of summer.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/03/the_next_big_thing_is_clevelan.html

I'm annoyed that the residential component of the waterfront plan often seems downplayed.  An earlier PD article (http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/11/mayor_jackson_tries_to_change.html) said "Drawings show 90 acres laced with offices, restaurants, shops and marinas."  Ummm..  what about apartments? 

 

Yes, there's been talk of studies to see if there's demand for housing in this area, but with a 96% downtown residential occupancy rate and waiting lists for residential buildings that are hundreds of people long, I think that study is a waste of money.  There's more demand downtown for residential than there is for offices, restaurants, shops or a marina.  I'd rather see 100 new apartments than 100 new boat slips.  (I'd like to see both)  More people living downtown would change the city's atmosphere quicker than anything else.  And there's demand for it!  But due to financing difficulties or whatever other roadblocks, we can't get stuff built fast enough.  At the rate we're going, the downtown population will reach 20,000 in 2037.  Too slow.

 

We came up with over $400 million to build a medical mart that most residents of the county will never enter.  We've spend millions on other projects like Gateway and the stadium.  I wish there was money like that to publicly subsidize downtown housing. 

 

Sorry for the rant.  To bring this back on topic, the lakefront should have a strong residential component.  I know Browns fans who'd move downtown just to be able to get a peak inside the stadium from their bedroom window.

Sorry for the rant.  To bring this back on topic, the lakefront should have a strong residential component.  I know Browns fans who'd move downtown just to be able to get a peak inside the stadium from their bedroom window.

 

Man I am totally with you on this.

 

You offer a new lakefront residence in the footprint of the stadium, and for the multitude of die-hard Browns fans suddenly, like magic, that ranch in Middleburg Hts. is not so appealing.

I don't think a residential tower tall enough to peer into CBS can be built on the lake due to flight paths from Burke

Burke is a no go.  Seriously... forget about it.  I don't think people have any idea how chemically polluted that place is.  People can't even do runway repair work there without having to wear a hazmat suit. It really is a toxic waste dump.

Burke is all landfill.  It was built with the same dredgings they are planning on using for the new facility, and the ones on Dike 14.  Why would it be any different? 

 

Burke was not just river dredgings like Dike 14.  Burke was also a landfill.  People don't even know what was put in there or where, this area was created pre EPA.  It is on the list of most contaminated Cuyahoga County properties by state and federal agencies.  There was a lot of tests done in the early to mid 90's and parts of the area were found to be "toxic".  Thus why people have to legitimately wear hazmat suits to do just about any type of work on that land.

 

Reasons pursuing Burke at the present time is "dumb":

 

1.  Due to the contaminated nature of the grounds, I have heard costs to clean the contaminated soil are astronomical.  As in truly, truly astronomical.

 

2.  Unlike Meigs Field in Chicago, Burke was built almost entirely with FAA funds in the early 60's.  Meigs was built in the 40's by the city of chicago.  So when Daley bulldozed x's in some runways, the FAA didn't have much of a say.  Granted they were pissed, Chicago should have given 30 days notice to closing their airport, but it was their choice.  Hence they had to pay a $33,000 fine.  Closing Burke is not just Cleveland's call, it's also the FAA who built it.  And we need the FAA money that flows into Hopkins a lot more than a city like Chicago does.  If we "pull a daley" and bulldoze the runway it could have serious implications in regards to the funding Cleveland recieves from the FAA.  We'd also have to repay all the money the FAA used to build it, which I'm pretty sure we don't have lying around.

 

3. Massive connectivity issues.  I think sometimes people around here tend to overlook just how disconnected we are from our "lakefront".  Well, there is a reason the city was founded on the banks of the Cuyahoga and not on the "shores" of lake erie... We don't have a natural lakefront.  Our lakefront was a 50 foot cliff that started right behind city hall.  Most of the land comprised of what is now known as our lakefront was dirt brought in by rail cars from excavating land in the downtown area.  The terminal tower provided over 1,000 rail cars full of dirt alone.  And that rail line as we all know is still there and is still very active.... at the bottom of the 50 foot drop.  Then there is that little thing known as the shoreway that gets in the way.  And about midway through the Burke land is the shoreway / 90 interchange that takes up quite a bit of land.  And on the Burke side, there isn't a single connection from that land to the city save East 9th street.  And even if there were once you get past east 18th street, you'd be connecting that land to light industrial land, not exactly the most beautiful or populated areas of the city.

 

The problems and challenges with Burke are enormous.  I don't know why AT THIS POINT, we are even wasting our time.  It can be a great asset as an airport... and in the meantime we've got ONE HUNDRED AND TEN ACRES of lakefront land at the port.  Land that is already connected to the Warehouse District (the most populated neighborhood of downtown), the river, the central business district.  110 acres.  That's practically a third of the size of downtown proper.  It's going to keep us busy for quite some time.  And contrary to what Mr. Morrison has to say (whom definitely does not get along with the administration), disolving your port and giving it away to far away places isn't regionalism.  That's just giving your port (and most of it's economic benefits) away.  I'm guessing Chris Warren and Chris Ronayne, the two biggest proponents of Regionalism you will find, also don't see this as such.  And as for just absolving the port and just "developing" the whole thing all at once rather than phasing it in over 25-30 years, well I'm sorry but that is just assinine.  I mean really.  We're talking about an area roughly a third of the size of downtown.  Who pays for that?  And what happens when you build tens of thousands of residences all at once?  How long do those places sit empty, what does that oversaturation do to the rest of the downtown?  How many millions of square feet of office space do you think downtown can absorb right now?  And saying things like "not doing anything until 2035" is patently false.  Plans call for the first phase to be worked in over the next five years.  The bottom line is that like it or not and as frustrating as it may be.  Phasing this development in over the next 20-30 years IS the best way to go about developing a parcel this large.  It will keep demand and interest up.

 

Came across this great post and thought it would be nice to bring up again, just to dismiss any discussion about developing burke.