Awesome!

 

Also, while not as glamorous as the Chicago plan above, here's the latest from the Motor City on Belle Isle.

 

http://www.freep.com/article/20120912/NEWS01/120912033/belle-isle-state-park-snyder-bing?odyssey=obinsite

 

 

I myself will shell out $10 for this place. What a great great resource for Detroit.

 

Thanks for posting!

Not sure what it means but WKYC is reporting that Jimmy Haslam will meet with Cleveland city council on Wednesday. It is described as a meet and greet.  Just guessing but I am sure CBS will be discussed.  Haslam has said he would like to create a better fan experience at the stadium. That might include being involved with lakefront development.

 

Nice!

 

Exclusive interview: New Browns owner Jimmy Haslam isn’t the boss yet, but he’s working hard

 

On lakefront development: “We’re highly interested in seeing

that area develop. One, it’s great for Cleveland, and two, I think it’s

great for the Cleveland Browns. What our role in that is, I don’t know

enough to comment. But are we interested in seeing that happen?

Absolutely. I’ve been very impressed with the amount of activity

downtown and it looks like Cleveland is on the upswing economically. I

know there are several projects that are at least in the talking phases.

But we’d love to see that happen.

 

http://tucsondawgpound.com/2012/08/exclusive-interview-new-browns-owner-jimmy-haslam-isnt-the-boss-yet-but-hes-working-hard/

"Apartments weren't part of the original pitch, but [Cleveland's chief of regional development Chris] Warren now exalts the possibility of a waterfront residences, citing downtown occupancy rates that hover around 96 percent." 

 

Ding ding!

^Wow, that is such a sea change from the way we have always viewed housing in the city.  Instead of a targeted investment, in order to grow the city, this development could be a reaction to fill a need for a growing city.

Put those words in Warren's mouth 3 years ago and he sounds like he knows what he's doing.  Better late than never I suppose.

^Wow, that is such a sea change from the way we have always viewed housing in the city.  Instead of a targeted investment, in order to grow the city, this development could be a reaction to fill a need for a growing city.

 

What a concept!  And let's hope it comes true! 

How were apartments not part of the original pitch?  Can someone show me the plan that didn't include any waterfront residential?

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.

 

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

I went to the meeting where that plan was unveiled, they made it pretty clear that "Harbor West" was intended to be a primarily residential neighborhood.

Good info.  I need to get to more of these meetings. 

 

The PD material explicitly states that-- unlike all other aspects-- residential in Harbor West was premised on finding demand for it which, as others pointed out at the time, is kind of a silly thing to question at this point.

jborger mentioned how many Browns fans would love to live right there by the stadium. It's hard not to agree. Imagine the neighborhood...it would be a mecca of tailgating.

Good info.  I need to get to more of these meetings. 

 

The PD material explicitly states that-- unlike all other aspects-- residential in Harbor West was premised on finding demand for it which, as others pointed out at the time, is kind of a silly thing to question at this point.

 

All construction is premised on finding demand.  It's just weird writing by the PD.

I saw today in the news that Geis has been approved to begin working (prelim only) on the new office park SOUTH WEST of Burke Airport. Only problem I have understanding is what the hell that means. Looking at a map, there is no land available to develop southwest of Burke. There's the Muni lot south, and southwest is basically a rapid stop and E. 9th, the muni parking garage, and the coast guard parking lot. If they mean southwest of the landing strip, then that'd mean the only parking lot at Burke. and that also makes no sense. Would love to better understand this whole plan.

 

edit: ok i just found the answer to my own question: http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/08/geis_cos_float_plan_for_lakefr.html

^ There's a map of the area at the bottom of this article. 

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/08/geis_cos_float_plan_for_lakefr.html

 

A parking structure would be included.

Lots of lakefront ordinances coming out of City Council:

 

Passage of lakefront development pieces:

 

Ord. No. 744-12

By Council Members Cimperman, Keane, Cleveland, and Sweeney (by departmental request)

Determining the method of making the public improvement of constructing a transient marina at the East 9th Street pier and associated support facilities and amenities; authorizing the Director of Port Control to enter into one or more contracts for the making of the improvement; authorizing design services, construction management and other related services; acquiring any real property and easements necessary for right-of-way purposes; to enter into various written standard purchase and requirement contracts; authorizing one or more professional consultants for marina management services; authorizing submerged land leases; authorizing the Director to apply for and accept gifts, grants, and other funding from public and private entities, including the gift or loan of equipment; authorizing the Director to fix and charge docking fees; for a period of five years with one five-year option to renew, exercisable through additional legislative authority.

Estimated Cost:  $1,960,000

Remarks by Director of Port Control Department:  See Legislation.

PASSAGE RECOMMENDED BY COMMITTEE ON AVIATION AND TRANSPORTATION.

 

Ord. No. 1070-12

By Council Members Keane and Sweeney (by departmental requests)

Authorizing the Director of Port Control to enter into an Option to Lease Agreement, for a period of one year, with a one-year option to renew, exercisable by the Director of Port Control, with Geis Construction, Inc., an Ohio Corporation, or its designee, for an area known as the Burke Development District in order to market the district for future redevelopment.

Remarks by Director of Port Control Department:  See Legislation.

 

Ord. No. 1082-12

By Council Members Keane, Cleveland, and Sweeney (by departmental request)

Authorizing the Director of Port Control to lease Docks 28B, 30, and 32, excluding the warehouse on Docks 30 and 32, to the Cleveland Browns Stadium Company LLC for year-round surface parking and for staging special event programming.

 

Ord. No. 1252-12

By Council Members Keane and Sweeney (by departmental request)

To amend the title and Sections 2 and 8 of Ordinance No. 1608-11, passed March 19, 2012, relating to the cooperative agreement with the Cleveland-Cuyahoga Port Authority regarding the use of proceeds generated from parking activities and to transfer the balance to the City, to establish a Downtown Lakefront Management special revenue fund, and authorizing contracts to operate, maintain, and manage The Downtown Lakefront.

 

Ord. No. 1253-12

By Council Members Keane and Sweeney (by departmental request)

To amend the title and Sections 2 and 3 of Ordinance No. 1607-11, passed March 26, 2012, relating to the authorizing the Mayor and the Directors of Public Works and Port Control to enter into a Third Amendment and Restatement to Common Area Maintenance Agreement No. 48828 for the development, use, maintenance and operation of the common area of the North Coast Harbor.

 

###

Seeking a private stake in Cleveland's lakefront: editorial

Published: Thursday, September 27, 2012, 6:00 AM    Updated: Thursday, September 27, 2012, 9:02 AM

  By The Plain Dealer Editorial Board

 

For decades, Cleveland's downtown lakefront has captivated the imagination of planners and public officials, civic leaders and average citizens. They've seen how waterfront development has helped transform other cities by creating attractive spaces for people to live, work or simply enjoy the view. Now we may be on the verge of seeing if the private sector shares that imagination -- and is willing to back it up with money.

 

Mayor Frank Jackson has been moving systematically toward this moment: Ordering up a new master plan that built on the best of earlier efforts. Ending speculation about the future of the port and Burke Lakefront Airport. Working out details of responsibility for the harbor and the river with the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/09/seeking_a_private_stake_in_cle.html

A couple of renderings from last year that haven't been posted here yet......

 

 

 

SOURCE:

http://archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=5392

Looks like they are predicting Cleveland Clinic will secure naming rights for the stadium

Cleveland Clinic was a partner of the proposal they made a year or so ago when naming rights weren't being talked about at least publicly. I don't think they were really predicting anything. Just paying service to a backer of the proposal.

Also, that was the Cleveland Clinic sports medicine center that was loosely pitched and posted on Urban Ohio, along with these same pictures.     

Also, that was the Cleveland Clinic sports medicine center that was loosely pitched and posted on Urban Ohio, along with these same pictures.     

 

Articles about it were posted here, but not the renders. I went through pages in this thread going back to http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,3638.msg555769.html#msg555769 to make sure.

A couple of renderings from last year that haven't been posted here yet......

 

 

 

SOURCE:

http://archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=5392

 

I like it. I hope Jimmy Haslem likes it even more.

 

Fed air restriction comments in 3.....2.....1......

I don't like it.  I don't get what they are envisioning and how this development is the best use of the lakefront.  It seems to me these renderings could go anywhere..... such as the plot over by Burke, Midtown, Crocker Park.  Whatever happens north of CBS should be geared towards being on the lake.  I would also like to see better incorporation with what is already there.

I don't like it.  I don't get what they are envisioning and how this development is the best use of the lakefront.  It seems to me these renderings could go anywhere..... such as the plot over by Burke, Midtown, Crocker Park.  Whatever happens north of CBS should be geared towards being on the lake.  I would also like to see better incorporation with what is already there.

 

To me the renderings look like the new FEB. I think it looks fine for a waterfront. I've bought into the idea that that section of our Lakefront could be a "health and wellness" showplace.  Coney Island-esque amusements could go on the West Bank.

 

I'm curious what type of architecture would you rather see?

 

Really, the devil is in the details.  I'm not in awe of the architecture in Baltimore Inner Harbor. But it's sooo walkable. Everything in that vicinity connects just right so that it's a lively, pedestrian fueled thoroughfare.  Contrast to here: now I distinctly remember walking up the side of a grass hill to get to the Science Center from the Rock Hall!  No real connectivity unless you drive. We need those same ped-connections between our own attractions.

Without giving it too much thought (which I haven't) I suppose attractions which compliment the RRHOF and GLSC would be my preference.  It's not so much the architecture which turns me off.  It is the concept.  A large aquarium which incorporates the lake would have been ideal, but the ship has sailed on that one for the foreseeable future I suppose.

 

Where on the west bank do you think those Coney Island esque attractions could go?

Without giving it too much thought (which I haven't) I suppose attractions which compliment the RRHOF and GLSC would be my preference.  It's not so much the architecture which turns me off.  It is the concept.  A large aquarium which incorporates the lake would have been ideal, but the ship has sailed on that one for the foreseeable future I suppose.

 

Where on the west bank do you think those Coney Island esque attractions could go?

 

I got ya. My wishful thinking has the ground floors of those buildings filled with attractive retail.

 

In my Lakefront Plan (a series of drawn on napkins) for Coney style I'd consider both East and West:

 

Nautica

Shooters 

Elm/Center St blocks toward Wendy Park - currently an underutilized no-mans land.

West of Browns Stadium

Scranton Peninsula

The "pit" parking lot SE of Browns Stadium - can bridge North Coast Harbor with FEB.

Tower City Ampitheater area - walkable from Gateway and Casino, very underutilized land, lots of parking.

 

In my opinion a modern day version of Euclid Beach would be an incredible draw. Parents could use a low cost option to Cedar Point; we need more places for kids.

Buildings here should be oriented toward the water.  Large open promenade-type areas should be avoided.  Be generous with overhangs in pedestrian areas.  It's a waterfront but it's not Jamaica.  Most any design will work here in summer, the challenge is designing for winter.

Buildings here should be oriented toward the water.  Large open promenade-type areas should be avoided.  Be generous with overhangs in pedestrian areas.  It's a waterfront but it's not Jamaica.  Most any design will work here in summer, the challenge is designing for winter.

 

Right. I'm pretty sure in at least one of the Lakefront renderings the planners took this into account. North of Browns they oriented the streets diagonally, or in an "X" pattern to the water. Was supposed to cut down on the dreaded wind tunnel effect.

 

With E 9th however, I'm not sure I'd want to block the view of the lake down that stretch. That glimpse of the water straight north is welcoming.

q & a: william friedman, president & ceo cleveland-cuyahoga county port authority

Douglas Trattner | Thursday, October 11, 2012

 

The Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority is asking voters to vote "Yes" on Issue 108, a levy that would generate approximately $90 million over five years and cost property owners roughly $20 annually per $100,000 of assessed value.

 

****

 

And how will those improvements spur future river- and lake-front development.

 

Economists will tell you that for every dollar spent on public infrastructure, there is an investment multiplier. More specifically, if we can open up Franklin Hill, which is 30 acres, we can turn an eyesore into an amenity. If we can create a trail system which would allow you to go from the West Side Market to Wendy Park. If we can connect the mall complex down to the lakefront. I think there’s a straight line from these sorts of investments to decision-making on the part of people in terms of where do I want to locate my company and where do I want to live personally.

 

here's the rest:

 

http://www.freshwatercleveland.com/features/willfriedman101112.aspx

This is disheartening as it is unbelievable. Ever wonder why our coastline looks so freaking terrible? Here's a big reason why: criminal contractors and incompetent government.

 

http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/investigations/federal-probe-under-way-into-illegal-dumping-along-lake-erie-shoreline

FYI. This was approved a week ago...

 

CLEVELAND CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

November 30, 2012

Room 514, Cleveland City Hall

9:00am

 

Ordinance No. 1690-12(Ward 3/Councilmember Cimperman): Giving consent of the City of Cleveland to the Director

of Transportation of the State of Ohio for constructing a North Coast Harbor pedestrian bridge; authorizing

the Director of Capital Projects to enter into any relative agreements; and causing payment of the City’s

share to the State for the cost of the improvement.

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2012/11302012/cpc11302012.pdf

Are these new graphics, planning documents? I don't remember seeing them before.....

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/lakefront/jan2012.php

I am pretty sure those have been around a while.

Does everyone think its safe to say the biggest "skyscraper" we will ever see north of the shoreway highway will be Earnst and Young Flats building? 

 

I would love to see more dense buldings and "downtown" type buildings extend north all the way to the water but I just dont see it happening. A lot of the renderings I have seen for the lakefront all seem to be modified takes of Crocker Park.

^ There is a height limit for buildings closer to the Lakefront because of the Burke Airport.

Yes that's safe to say, and I wouldn't view it in a particularly negative light either. I think your expectations skew taller than most folks and taller than anything we've seen except maybe for the "World Trade Cetner"/Eaton proposals for the WFL loop.

It was always my hope that one day someone would have the foresight and the money to cap the lakefront railroad tracks from W3rd. To E9th.  Creating a perfect link to the waterfront. Well I have come down from those expectations and now propose something still unlikely to happen but certainly more affordable. In essence creating a Mall D and continue the Mall right down to the lakefront.  I would like to borrow a couple of crews who are building piers for the innerbelt and have them build a few over the railroad tracks. Now that would be cool.

It was always my hope that one day someone would have the foresight and the money to cap the lakefront railroad tracks from W3rd. To E9th.  Creating a perfect link to the waterfront. Well I have come down from those expectations and now propose something still unlikely to happen but certainly more affordable. In essence creating a Mall D and continue the Mall right down to the lakefront.  I would like to borrow a couple of crews who are building piers for the innerbelt and have them build a few over the railroad tracks. Now that would be cool.

 

You can't cover for such a length a railroad line that carries hazardous materials. There also needs to be an open side(s) or openings above for diesel exhaust to ventilate.

 

Now, you could make about $150 million to $200 million worth of improvements to tracks to detour most of the 70+ freight trains per day including all of the hazardous materials on a "Lakefront Bypass"  http://www.gcbl.org/files/resources/railbypassstudy.pdf. I can't believe this report is still kicking around after almost a decade, and I still get inquiries about it. But you can't get rid of all the trains down there, including freight shipments to online customers including the port, plus Amtrak and RTA. But you could reduce the number of freight trains from 70+ to perhaps less than five (plus the four daily Amtraks), and those trains would be much shorter than the mile-long behemoths that roar through there.

 

And yes, we have a discussion thread for the Lakefront Bypass here at UO....

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,10544.msg127713.html#msg127713

You can't cover for such a length a railroad line that carries hazardous materials. There also needs to be an open side(s) or openings above for diesel exhaust to ventilate.

 

Are you saying that the Mall D length would be too long or the w3rd to e9th stretch. Also I know I should be more informed on this but what type of hazardous materials can be transported through such a populated area. Or couldn't just the trains with the hazerdous materials be routed elsewhere.

Does everyone think its safe to say the biggest "skyscraper" we will ever see north of the shoreway highway will be Earnst and Young Flats building? 

 

I would love to see more dense buldings and "downtown" type buildings extend north all the way to the water but I just dont see it happening. A lot of the renderings I have seen for the lakefront all seem to be modified takes of Crocker Park.

 

I believe that when you get close to the water you need to be sensitive to shading out too much of the area. I'm cool with more density, but I don't want our waterfront to be cast in shade for most of the day like the rest of downtown.

Are you saying that the Mall D length would be too long or the w3rd to e9th stretch.

 

I do not believe this is a federal regulation that determines this. Instead individual railroads may decide the extent of overhead coverage of their rights of way based on local operating conditions. I can tell you that, when the City of Cleveland has previously proposed structures over the tracks north of Mall C, they limited the area of coverage to roughly half of Mall C, presumably at the request of the railroad. Where the area of coverage was more than that, there were openings above the tracks for ventilation of diesel exhaust and heat. That's especially true of the two tracks closest to Mall C which host 70+ freight trains per day.

 

Also I know I should be more informed on this but what type of hazardous materials can be transported through such a populated area. Or couldn't just the trains with the hazerdous materials be routed elsewhere.

 

Because railroad rights of way are not publicly owned and are instead owned by the companies that operate most of the trains over them, they cannot simply reroute trains over someone else's tracks. If they do, the other railroad will likely demand a trackage use fee that makes such a reroute uneconomical. Furthermore, railroads have abandoned many parallel lines in the last few decades and concentrated more traffic on core mainlines. So rail lines that could have been used for reroutes no longer exist. Lastly, since American industries and cities grew up along major rail lines, you are unlikely to find an existing rail line that does not pass through a heavily populated area at some point along the way. Most remaining rail lines were kept so they could serve the largest cities which tend to have the most shipping customers.

^Thanks for that. I've put this on my bucket list of things I want to do more research on. OK back to development news.

 

And lastly who wouldn't settle for this again, built at a cost of $85k.

^You do realize that the images in that picture could probably be reproduced for not much more..... given the lack of quality in materials?

^ I'd be ecstatic with a faithful recreation of that bridge.

What's so great about that bridge are the little enclosed kiosks up and down the walkway. All the different vendors you could have throughout the different seasons would be crazy. The Rock Hall and the ScienceCenter the Browns all could have a presence there. How come people were so much smarter back then.

Now' date=' you could make about $150 million to $200 million worth of improvements to tracks to detour most of the 70+ freight trains per day including all of the hazardous materials on a "Lakefront Bypass"  http://www.gcbl.org/files/resources/railbypassstudy.pdf. I can't believe this report is still kicking around after almost a decade, and I still get inquiries about it....

 

KJP---thanks for posting the link. I quickly scrolled through for a map to get a quick understanding of the issue, but didn't see any. I did see this on the table of contents page:

 

"(note that all maps and figures mentioned in the text are collected at the end of this document)"

 

yet, saw no maps at the end.  can you post those or a link to them? at least an overview map showing the bypass options.  thanks.

KJP---thanks for posting the link. I quickly scrolled through for a map to get a quick understanding of the issue, but didn't see any. I did see this on the table of contents page:

 

"(note that all maps and figures mentioned in the text are collected at the end of this document)"

 

yet, saw no maps at the end.  can you post those or a link to them? at least an overview map showing the bypass options.  thanks.

 

Unfortunately those weren't included in the link posted to the website. So I searched through some CDs and found where I saved everything. I uploaded most of the images on the CD to Photobucket.....

 

http://s208.beta.photobucket.com/user/Peepersk/library/Cleveland%20Lakefront%20Bypass

 

But here's a map of mine from 2000 showing the route and that later became the impetus for the study....

 

 

^KJP---thanks for digging that up. Bypassing the lakefront makes complete sense. I'll read the report you posted, but must ask in the meantime---is it being considered by the railroads?

^KJP---thanks for digging that up. Bypassing the lakefront makes complete sense. I'll read the report you posted, but must ask in the meantime---is it being considered by the railroads?

 

No. As proposed, it has little benefit to the principal railroad involved here -- Norfolk Southern. It does has some benefit, but none they'll admit to as that would cause them to have to pay something for it.

 

A way that it could have more benefit to Norfolk Southern is if this is done as part of a network growth strategy. NS's ability to accommodate additional traffic through Cleveland, which is part of their busiest east-west route (Chicago-East Coast), is constrained by its bridge crossings in Cleveland -- especially their low-level lift bridge on the lakefront. The key for NS to become involved is if this project addresses their long-term capacity expansion needs for decades to come. That includes additional tracks across the city, and to replace their long, two-track bridge below the Inner Belt (new and old) bridge with a three-track span that is also slightly higher to clear more bridge traffic. Then you might get NS's interest, perhaps enough they'd be willing to share the expense of this Lakefront Bypass.

^Thanks. I guess, if there was some interest from the city, it could push it along. You'd think with Jackson's lakefront vision, they'd be all over this!