I have always envisioned the Browns Stadium moved to follow the Mall grid . An open ended stadium raised to have the freeway and the tracks under the field.  the northern end would then connect directly to the North Coast Harbor. Hence freeing the old stadium location for redevelopment/residential.  The stadium could follow the neoclassical architecture of the original burnham plan ( think soldiers stadium in chicago)  I  think of the malls filled on game days filled with activity. Also activating the City's center heart with sports and medicine as its heart and soul. the second image is my dream for future longterm. the lakefront should be for the citizens of Cleveland

I'm speechless.

Up thread I had talked about capping a portion of the lakefront over the RR tracks to extend the mall further. Obviously not a new thought looking at a proposal from Daniel Burnham to extend over the tracks. But apparently no one told him of the regulations against building over tracks that moved hazardous materials. But I am just guessing those regulations were not in place at the time. With the current talk from the city and the port about a $20 million walkway and although better than nothing I would hate to see us settle for that, when a much greater vision was proposed 100 years ago.

I have always envisioned the Browns Stadium moved to follow the Mall grid . An open ended stadium raised to have the freeway and the tracks under the field.  the northern end would then connect directly to the North Coast Harbor. Hence freeing the old stadium location for redevelopment/residential.  The stadium could follow the neoclassical architecture of the original burnham plan ( think soldiers stadium in chicago)  I  think of the malls filled on game days filled with activity. Also activating the City's center heart with sports and medicine as its heart and soul. the second image is my dream for future longterm. the lakefront should be for the citizens of Cleveland

 

I love this, and you're right, better integration of Browns Stadium, the real heart and soul of the city, would be a huge hit. Only downside - new stadium costs still boggle my mind.

If only we had built dave68's plan in 1999.  That is a dramatic difference.  In that plan I can see the stadium with a retractable dome and a connection to the CC, justification for moving the port further from downtown to encourage the development he's shown, and heck that would make an impressive place for the intermodal transit hub to be built.  Alas that didn't happen in '99, and honestly building a stadium over the tracks and shoreway would take an investment from the federal govt akin to getting the olympics...hey any hope we can get this done in time for the senior olympics or gay games???  :-D

Kudos to KJP for his lakefront bypass plan and dave68 for his stadium plan.  :clap:  Any chance either of you have a few hundred million dollars laying around?  Failing that, ever thought about running for public office and providing some innovative, exciting, out-of-the-box thinking for this community?

If only we had built dave68's plan in 1999. 

 

This plan wasn't too different........

 

 

Sadly, Mayor Mike White was not interested in considering other sites (such as the much-discussed NS Intermodal site) because he wanted the stadium built quickly so that the Browns could return quickly. That meant using the existing stadium site and all of its existing utilities and infrastructure. So this option was rejected...

 

 

Kudos to KJP for his lakefront bypass plan and dave68 for his stadium plan.  :clap:  Any chance either of you have a few hundred million dollars laying around?  Failing that, ever thought about running for public office and providing some innovative, exciting, out-of-the-box thinking for this community?

 

Thanks, but out-of-the-box thinking usually doesn't come from elected officials. They don't have the time for it. And that's not where their talents lie. Their talents lie in bringing disparate opinions and agendas together. So make sure you share your ideas and opinions and agendas so they can become part of the public discourse. And frankly, some ideas are proposed before or after the right time. So try to be early and keep sharing your ideas!

I always love that second one.  Thanks for reposting it KJP

I always love that second one.  Thanks for reposting it KJP

 

Since this is the lakefront thread, think of the amount of land that could have been opened up for development on the lakefront if that NS intermodal site was selected instead. Ironically, that intermodal site still hasn't found a new use since NS moved out 15 years ago. Had it been chosen for the stadium, it would have been used more often, even with a limited-use football stadium, than it has been since it was rejected for the stadium.

 

I would hope we could have found a use for a vacated lakefront stadium site in the 15 years since Municipal Stadium was demolished. Who knows, maybe the NS Intermodal site will still be available when Cleveland Browns Stadium is in need of replacement 15 years from now! ;)

^ Thats what im hoping for!

 

A question, what will happen when the time comes to replace our current stadiums? Being downtown, we cant just do what other cities have done, build a new one next to the old one in the middle of a sea of parking lots. And unless building techniques/technology change dramatically, it wont be possible to demolish and build a new stadium in the same location during the offseason. Just wondering what possible plans are.

 

Meadowlands! Please note the New Jersey Transit train station in the foreground -- one of the goofiest routings into a stadium I've ever seen.

 

There's plenty of places to move Browns Stadium when the time comes. Amazing to think that we were so close in the 1980s to moving it off the lakefront to the Central Market Domed Stadium. That ultimately resulted in Gateway, and our football team leaving town.

 

How about starting a new thread in the Discussion section that asks: "When the Cleveland Browns need a new stadium in 2030(!), where should it be built?" Let's keep this thread to bonafide lakefront plans and developments, of which there were and are plenty.

My first reaction is that the Browns' hiring of Scheiner has some implications for the future of Browns Stadium and the area immediately surrounding it. Apparently Scheiner was instrumental in the development of Dallas' glitzy new Cowboys Stadium which apparently knocked the socks off Jimmy Haslam III when the Browns played the Cowboys last month.......

 

Cleveland Browns name Alec Scheiner their new president

By Mary Kay Cabot, The Plain Dealer

on December 18, 2012 at 10:09 PM, updated December 18, 2012 at 10:29 PM

 

BEREA, Ohio -- Alec Scheiner, the first hire by Jimmy Haslam and Joe Banner, promises to make the fan experience at Cleveland Browns Stadium as inviting and exciting as Cowboys Stadium, the NFL's crown jewel which he helped build.

 

"We created something that is perfectly fit for the Dallas Cowboys and I'd like to do the same thing in Cleveland," the Browns' new president said on a conference call Tuesday. "Create something that links us to the past and links us to the community in a way that when Browns fans outside Cleveland come, they know exactly where they are and they enjoy it."

 

Scheiner, who will start Jan. 7, spent the previous eight years with the Cowboys, the last five as senior vice president and general counsel. He replaces Mike Holmgren as president, but his role will be different.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2012/12/alec_scheiner_has_agreed_to_be.html#incart_river_default

^Also very interesting, he started a concessions company, co owned by the Yankees and Cowboys and financed by Goldman Sacks.  That tells me three things.

    1. He is good at generating revenue other than traditional sources. 

    2. He understands food and beverage.

    3. He thinks big

 

I hope those  facts help spur a harbor front entertainment district, or at least a large "Browns Hall of Fame Cafe" at CBS (but really on NCH)

Meadowlands! Please note the New Jersey Transit train station in the foreground -- one of the goofiest routings into a stadium I've ever seen.

 

There's plenty of places to move Browns Stadium when the time comes. Amazing to think that we were so close in the 1980s to moving it off the lakefront to the Central Market Domed Stadium. That ultimately resulted in Gateway, and our football team leaving town.

 

How about starting a new thread in the Discussion section that asks: "When the Cleveland Browns need a new stadium in 2030(!), where should it be built?" Let's keep this thread to bonafide lakefront plans and developments, of which there were and are plenty.

 

I created just such a thread......

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,28165.msg655341.html#msg655341

......So speculate away!

This was lost in the server crash........

 

http://www.clevelandairport.com/Doing-Business/Bids---RFPs-(1)/Downtown-Cleveland-Lakefront-Development-RFQ/Downtown-Cleveland-Lakefront-Development-RFQ---6-3.aspx

 

Developer Request for Qualifications:

Finance, Design and Development of

Select Downtown Lakefront Property in Cleveland, Ohio

 

Issued: June 3, 2013

Department of Port Control

 

AND

 

http://www.city.cleveland.oh.us/CityofCleveland/Home/Government/CityAgencies/Finance/RFP?_piref34_136352_34_121844_121844.__ora_navig=action%3Ddetails%26rfpId%3D4961

 

RFPs/RFQs: Requests for Proposals/Requests for Qualifications

 

RFP/RFQ

 

Title : Request for Qualification ? Downtown Cleveland Lakefront Developer

Opening Date/Time : Monday, June 3, 2013  8:00 AM

Closing Date/Time : Thursday, August 15, 2013  4:00 PM

Buyer Organization : Port Control / Department

Buyer Contact Name : Sharri Mui

Buyer Contact Phone : (216) 265-2693

Buyer Contact Email : [email protected]

Meeting : Yes, attendance is optional

Meeting Date/Time : Wednesday, June 19, 2013  2:00 PM

Meeting Location : Burke Lakefront Airport

Large Conference Room

1501 North Marginal Road

Cleveland, Ohio  44114

 

 

http://www.city.cleveland.oh.us/FileUploadServlet-1.0/download?docId=9963

 

City of Cleveland

Frank G. Jackson, Mayor

Office of the Mayor

Cleveland City Hall

601 Lakeside Avenue, Room 202

Cleveland, Ohio 44114

216/664-3990 Fax 216/420-8766

www.cleveland-oh.gov

 

June 1, 2013

 

RE: Downtown Cleveland Lakefront Developer Request for Qualifications

 

Dear Developer:

 

Cleveland is experiencing economic growth and seeing significant investment in

neighborhoods across the city, particularly Downtown. Major projects, like the Horseshoe

Casino, the Global Center for Health Innovation the Convention Center are proving to be

catalytic. They are raising Cleveland's profile as a destination for businesses and tourists

alike. There is record demand for Downtown housing. Foot traffic on city streets and visits to

retail shops, restaurants and entertainment venues are on the rise.

 

These are all signs that Cleveland is ready for the next surge in development. And that surge

will come to Cleveland's Downtown Lakefront. The rebirth of the Flats East Bank

neighborhood is proof that Cleveland's waterfront is ready for redevelopment.

 

In order to build on this momentum, we are seeking commercial mixed-use development

along our 28-acre shoreline to transform it into the world class waterfront the community

desires.

 

To that end, the City of Cleveland, through its Department of Port Control, is seeking

qualified real estate developer(s) to comprehensively manage and finance the development of

two unique districts that were identified for such development in the 2012 Downtown

Cleveland Lakefront Plan:

 

•Harbor West: This area is approximately 18.6 acres, primarily comprised of surface

parking lots and soon to be vacated warehouses, which are located between Erieside

Avenue and the water’s edge north of FirstEnergy Stadium and the Great Lakes Science

Center; and

 

•North Coast Harbor: Located north of the City’s new convention center and immediately

adjacent to Harbor West. This area consists of the East 9th Street Pier and a large

protected water basin surrounded by Voinovich Park, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

and Museum, Great Lakes Science Center, NASA Glenn Visitor Center and the

FirstEnergy Stadium.

 

Cleveland has the potential to become one of the world’s greatest waterfronts. We are very

excited about this opportunity to enliven and improve our downtown area. We look forward

to receiving your Qualifications submittal by August 15, 2013.

 

Sincerely,

Frank G. Jackson, Mayor

I re-posted what's above because of what's below. Not sure what the amendment is, but here's the notice of it.....

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2013/08022013/index.php

 

City Planning Commission

Agenda for August 2, 2013

 

ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS

 

1. Ordinance No. 844-13(Ward 3/Councilmember Cimperman): To amend Section 1 of Ordinance No. 1070-12, passed September 24, 2012, relating to an Option to Lease Agreement with Geis Construction Inc., for an area known as the Burke Development District to market the district for future redevelopment.

^Maybe extend the option for another year?

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/lakefront/iactive/flash/6/PDF/concept_plan.pdf

 

So I know the lakefront plan is pretty massive, but have they ever stated any kind of unofficial of time table of how long a project like this might take?  Or which parts are the first/highest priority to start?

so much of this will never happen. I think there are a couple major things that are doable.  I think they can incorporate Rockefeller Park towards the lake better. 

^^ I think that lakefront plan was largely abandoned. I do really like the plans to move the port to that extension on Whiskey Island, and expanding Edgewater Park. But that's probably not very feasible...

Some of that plan has evolved, some of it is already in the works and I agree with Whipjacka that a lot will never happen. It is a wonderful idea, but until Cleveland starts growing...there's not enough demand and therefore not as much capital providing the supply.

^^ I think that lakefront plan was largely abandoned. I do really like the plans to move the port to that extension on Whiskey Island, and expanding Edgewater Park. But that's probably not very feasible...

 

Correct.  That crazy ambitions thing is really not "the lakefront plan" anymore.  The current plan is really all about the area north of CBS extending east to the Muni lot and the Burke terminal area: http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/lakefront/jan2012.php

The ambitious lakefront plan posted above may be out of the picture, but I think there still needs to be a long term plan for converting the port space between the river and Browns Stadium into an area that can be utilized by the general public.  This is not an immediate concern because filling in that space would pull development from other parts of downtown, and right now there is momentum doing the necessary work filling in holes in downtown’s existing footprint.  But in the long term the confluence of the Cuyahoga and Lake Erie stands as a piece of land uniquely primed for a walkable urban environment.  So where to move port operations?  If creating an island on the breakwall or moving to a new island on E. 55th are not realistic, then I propose a potentially more workable option: consolidating on an extension of Whiskey Island. 

 

Currently Whiskey Island is split between Wendy Park and the Bulk Terminal.  By adding fill to the north of these two features enough land can be created to house all Port operations while leaving room for the two incumbent facilities.  Two steps: fill in land north of the Bulk Terminal to reorient its footprint from east-west to north-south, then fill in land north of the Wendy Park to create a peninsula for other Port Operations. 

 

 

And in animated gif form:

 

 

This approach would allow the Bulk Terminal to continue operations and have the same footprint while creating additional Port facilities comparable to the existing land east of the river.  According to Wikipedia, the Port has 522,720 sq ft of open storage space, plus 420,000 sq ft of warehouse space, with 6500 linear ft of dock space (in addition to the Bulk Terminal if I understand correctly).  By my back of the envelope calculations, the new Port space in my plan would have a footprint of about 1,600,000 sq ft, allowing plenty of room for open storage and warehouses, plus the Bulk Terminal keeping a footprint of the same size as it currently has.  My plan allows for only 3150 linear feet of dock space, but it could be shaped differently to allow more.  This plan would find a use for dredge material from the river, create a comparable space for the Port, keep Wendy Park in place, and open up the lakefront for a development of parkland and mixed uses.  This is a long term plan, but actions to renovate the waterfront need to start now.

 

Great idea, however, the costs might be astronomical... Any idea how much something like this would cost?

I feel like using Wendy Park would be the cheapest option. I would gladly trade that land for downtown port land

^^ The costs would definitely be cheaper than the E. 55th idea they were throwing around years ago. Plus, there is already rail access to that area. And the Army Corps of Engineers needs a place to dump their dredged silt from the river anyway, so they might as well build some reclaimed land that's useful. Why not just dictate that all dirt from city and county construction projects have to be dumped there as well? That would certainly fill it up quicker.

^I love this idea. To me, it would only add to Wendy Park's uniqueness as a recreation destination. And given the rate at which commercial development is occurring in the city, we're still probably a good 20-30 years out from *needing* the land the port currently occupies for development, so the slow process of building new land with dredgings would be acceptable. Plus, there aren't many(or any)potent constituencies in the immediate area that could protest the ports relocation to this site (presumably).

I feel like using Wendy Park would be the cheapest option. I would gladly trade that land for downtown port land

 

That ship has already sailed.  To my understanding,  Dan Moore was careful to set up Wendy Park so as to be invulnerable to a repeat attack to come for the land. 

I feel like using Wendy Park would be the cheapest option. I would gladly trade that land for downtown port land

 

That ship has already sailed.  To my understanding,  Dan Moore was careful to set up Wendy Park so as to be invulnerable to a repeat attack to come for the land. 

 

That was my understanding as well but it's good to have it reaffirmed.

Jfristik, to answer your question, no I don't know what the cost of the plan I posted above would be.  I do agree with Urbanophile's points that it would be cheaper than the abandoned plan for E. 55th St. and already have rail access.  Plus my plan also provides a use for the dredgings from the river that need a home anyway.  I think my proposal could theoretically be cost neutral or even profitable because of the added value of using the land where the Port currently is for a mixed use, tax generating neighborhood.  Perhaps tax increment financing from the increased value of waterfront development east of the river could be used to fund the cost of creating the new fill I propose off Whiskey Island.

DPC's Lakefront RFQ was due last week (on the 15th). Anyone have any insight/news?

 

http://www.clevelandairport.com/Doing-Business/Bids---RFPs-%281%29/Downtown-Cleveland-Lakefront-Development-RFQ/Downtown-Cleveland-Lakefront-Development-RFQ---6-3.aspx

The downside of Whiskey Island is that there are fewer locations for spin-off warehousing-type activities. There isn't much land area on Whiskey Island for it as it fights with growing parkland for space. And nearby, the opportunities are becoming fewer in number as residential-oriented redevelopment in Ohio City and Detroit-Shoreway expands. The East 55th area has lots of land where warehouses can be developed.

Jfristik, to answer your question, no I don't know what the cost of the plan I posted above would be.  I do agree with Urbanophile's points that it would be cheaper than the abandoned plan for E. 55th St. and already have rail access.  Plus my plan also provides a use for the dredgings from the river that need a home anyway.  I think my proposal could theoretically be cost neutral or even profitable because of the added value of using the land where the Port currently is for a mixed use, tax generating neighborhood.  Perhaps tax increment financing from the increased value of waterfront development east of the river could be used to fund the cost of creating the new fill I propose off Whiskey Island.

 

I think it's almost a certainty that a TIF would be used to get the private development itself off the ground, so I wouldn't look for any cross subsidy to help pay for this proposal. And personally, I would strongly oppose any plan to spend money on anything other than getting something like the current, modest plan off the ground (or improved).  I've lost track, though, of any current long term plans for the dredged material. Has a site already been identified once the Burke pit is filled in?

Jfristik, to answer your question, no I don't know what the cost of the plan I posted above would be.  I do agree with Urbanophile's points that it would be cheaper than the abandoned plan for E. 55th St. and already have rail access.  Plus my plan also provides a use for the dredgings from the river that need a home anyway.  I think my proposal could theoretically be cost neutral or even profitable because of the added value of using the land where the Port currently is for a mixed use, tax generating neighborhood.  Perhaps tax increment financing from the increased value of waterfront development east of the river could be used to fund the cost of creating the new fill I propose off Whiskey Island.

 

While your proposal appears to be well thought out, I'd like to point out the fact that there is no real incentive for the Port to spend all that money to move.. Cleveland has more empty lots downtown than it knows what to do with. It would be completely different if we had run out of viable options for development downtown and the city coffers were overflowing with money. However, that is not the case. Furthermore, in my opinion pumping a ton of development into that area would only further disjoint the walkability of downtown. If any area deserves serious attention it is the no-mans land of parking lots between the Warehouse District and Public Square.

 

I agree that the lakefront is very poorly utilized. Hopefully, developing the area north of First Energy Stadium will be the first step in the right direction.

Always thought this was feasible. We certainly have no shortage of materials to create that space. I mean we are about to demo a mile long bridge. That would fill up that hole real quick.

Jfristik, to answer your question, no I don't know what the cost of the plan I posted above would be.  I do agree with Urbanophile's points that it would be cheaper than the abandoned plan for E. 55th St. and already have rail access.  Plus my plan also provides a use for the dredgings from the river that need a home anyway.  I think my proposal could theoretically be cost neutral or even profitable because of the added value of using the land where the Port currently is for a mixed use, tax generating neighborhood.  Perhaps tax increment financing from the increased value of waterfront development east of the river could be used to fund the cost of creating the new fill I propose off Whiskey Island.

 

While your proposal appears to be well thought out, I'd like to point out the fact that there is no real incentive for the Port to spend all that money to move.. Cleveland has more empty lots downtown than it knows what to do with. It would be completely different if we had run out of viable options for development downtown and the city coffers were overflowing with money. However, that is not the case. Furthermore, in my opinion pumping a ton of development into that area would only further disjoint the walkability of downtown. If any area deserves serious attention it is the no-mans land of parking lots between the Warehouse District and Public Square.

 

I agree that the lakefront is very poorly utilized. Hopefully, developing the area north of First Energy Stadium will be the first step in the right direction.

 

+1 I don't see how we can talk of opening up new lands to develop when so much of the core of Downtown needs work as well.  I support the more realistic plan Mayor Jackson put forward...let's develop in the existing gaps now and fill those in.  That process alone may take 20 years.

 

With that said the dredging must go somewhere, and I also support containing this material west of Downtown in some fashion.  When that containment comes close to filling in 15 or 20 years, we can re-evaluate where CLE stands.  If all the gaps are filled and demand exists by all means we should begin moving the port to this new land.  If not the area would certainly make another wonderful passive lakefront parkland.  Again we've got to put this dredging material somewhere, why don't we plan in such a way that we leave options open...none of us sitting here today have a crystal ball to see where the city and development will be in 20 years, but thoughtful planning can set a flexible stage for something both great and needed based on future market realities.

Five teams, from local developers, to national players express interest in developing Cleveland's lakefront...

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2013/08/five_teams_from_local_develope.html#incart_river_default#incart_m-rpt-2

There is going to have to be a sh*tload of subsidies poured into this for the economics to work, if Flats East Bank is any guide.

 

Renovations happen in Cleveland because 50% of the financing comes from historic tax credits. There is no comparable subsidy for new construction in Cleveland unless a developer can amass multiple sources and multiple layers of subsidies/financing, dubbed baklava financing! You have to really love Cleveland to want to build here.

There is going to have to be a sh*tload of subsidies poured into this for the economics to work, if Flats East Bank is any guide.

 

Renovations happen in Cleveland because 50% of the financing comes from historic tax credits. There is no comparable subsidy for new construction in Cleveland unless a developer can amass multiple sources and multiple layers of subsidies/financing, dubbed baklava financing! You have to really love Cleveland to want to build here.

 

Exactly! Which is why I was really excited during that ten minute timespan when Randy Lerner and the Browns were involved.

 

Anyhow while even the prospect of new construction is absolutely exciting, I don't see this space working unless the current assets are better tied together. Beating a dead horse after 10 years of saying this perhaps, but the same connectivity/walkability of Baltimore's Inner Harbor is what we must accomplish here asap.

 

The programming - and the architecture - of the Rock Hall, Science Center, Browns attractions (ie a monument park) and even the Coast Guard has to drastically change in order to embrace the public in a pedestrian friendly environment.

Another Lakefront Development Story. How close to reality is this compared to the other stories we heard in the past 30 years?http://fox8.com/2013/08/21/development-project-could-connect-clevelanders-with-lakefront/

^I think this time lakefront planning is different.  Previous plans were sweeping proposals requiring tens of billions of dollars, moving of large public assets like the port, etc.  After the pretty pictures and press conferences, the plans sat on a shelf in hopes that work would magically begin on the plan.

 

Mayor Jackson's approach has been much more realistic, and doable, which is why we're actually seeing movement.  He's proposed smaller (tens of millions...still huge) manageable projects to build upon, and he's positioned the city to take the lead in moving the process forward.  Previous plans never reached a point where RFP's were sent out and developers contacted to move the lakefront from the city's broad thematic plan to a working development plan...but that's what we're seeing now.  And the city/county are working together to identify funds to move public pieces forward, like the bridge to the lakefront from the convention center, that will further encourage lakefront development by addressing connectivity issues.  I look forward to this plan unfolding.

^Well put. No guarantee we'll see much anytime soon, but this current exercise is a development process, not mere visioning/master planning.  Plus, coordination with the county about spending "surplus" sales tax revenue puts some actual juice in the connectivity components.

Cleveland lakefront RFQ documents reveal details about potential projects, development teams

The Plain Dealer By Michelle Jarboe McFee, The Plain Dealer

on September 03, 2013 at 7:50 AM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The five teams chasing opportunities to build on Cleveland's lakefront envision everything from film studios to a school and hotels to restaurants, according to public records.

 

Last week, the city of Cleveland released copies of responses to a recent request for qualifications from developers interested in Harbor West and North Coast Harbor, two lakefront districts near FirstEnergy Stadium. Though heavily redacted -- to protect sensitive or competitive information, the city says -- the documents provide more details about the development teams and hints about their ideas.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2013/09/cleveland_lakefront_rfq_docume.html#incart_river_default

^A film studio requires a lot of space. I'd rather see a use that allows for greater density. Post-production work though could work with retail on the street level and offices above. A film studio would likely not have any street-level retail.....  In the former Brooklyn (NY) Navy Yard on the water, there is a bunch of film/post-production work that was set up there recently---I wonder if that was this proposer's inspiration. I like the thinking of Dick Pace---making it an excellent neighborhood. I'd like to see 24-hr life there---a few 24/7 diners/cafes, as well as hotels, apartments, condos, shops, shops for every day life, some cool restaurants, cheap restaurants, some bars (but not clubs)---and if space allows, perhaps a museum on the first few floors of one of the office buildings. But no silly tourist attractions that eat up all the space and/or require lots of parking that is otherwise empty most of the time.

I love that there are plans to include a school. If done right, this could be a helluva neighborhood. I agree with Pugu about the film studio, though. That could go anywhere, considering all the large vacant lots in Cleveland. We shouldn't waste the lakefront on that. I'm not sure how large film studios usually are, but maybe they can finally work on developing the land on Scranton Peninsula.

As someone who works in the entertainment industry, I would LOVE to see a film studio on the lakefront. Because of height requirements, etc. I don't know how much density you'd see on the lakefront anyway

^Understandable, but is a large box on Cleveland's lakefront the highest and best use of the property?  On the other hand, what about lakefront retail during the fall and winter months (50 mph winds off the lake in cold weather is none too pleasant)?  I could see housing or office uses on the lakefront, but I have trouble seeing too many uses which could survive year round.

^Some places are just seasonal attractions.  Cedar Point for example, or the Flats back in the day.

 

^Understandable, but is a large box on Cleveland's lakefront the highest and best use of the property?  On the other hand, what about lakefront retail during the fall and winter months (50 mph winds off the lake in cold weather is none too pleasant)?  I could see housing or office uses on the lakefront, but I have trouble seeing too many uses which could survive year round.

 

I agree.  They should locate a film studio in the sea of parking lots between E 13th and E 17th streets, not along the lakefront.

^Understandable, but is a large box on Cleveland's lakefront the highest and best use of the property?  On the other hand, what about lakefront retail during the fall and winter months (50 mph winds off the lake in cold weather is none too pleasant)?  I could see housing or office uses on the lakefront, but I have trouble seeing too many uses which could survive year round.

 

I agree.  They should locate a film studio in the sea of parking lots between E 13th and E 17th streets, not along the lakefront.

 

There are pre-existing structures on the docks that could easily fit the bill for a studio.  Warehouse space with overhead cranes, interesting backdrops, etc....  I can see why it's on the radar....