If we're talking about highway improvements, I know this would be a budget-buster, but putting some of the Shoreway underground would be a dream for making access to the lakefront more pedestrian friendly.  Replacing the Main Avenue Bridge with a tunnel would also open up valuable real estate in the Warehouse District and Flats. 

If we're talking about highway improvements, I know this would be a budget-buster, but putting some of the Shoreway underground would be a dream for making access to the lakefront more pedestrian friendly.  Replacing the Main Avenue Bridge with a tunnel would also open up valuable real estate in the Warehouse District and Flats. 

 

Or just a street/river-level boulevard.  The Shoreway was designed for 30,000+ cars a day and carries a fraction of that now. 

As for commuters from the West Side, they can opt for I90 if this doesn't suit their car-centric lifestyle.

I'm pretty sure the West Shoreway west of the Lakeside ramps carries 30,000+ vehicles per day.

"@FreshWaterCLE: mayor frank jackson's goodtime tour touts long-awaited action on waterfront development @CityofCleveland http://t.co/KkmGHn6iX5"

I'm pretty sure the West Shoreway west of the Lakeside ramps carries 30,000+ vehicles per day.

 

I believe you're right--I got the numbers mixed up.  It was designed for 50,000+, and today carries just over 30,000 (at least according to the stats I read during the Captain America filming shutdown).

^"highway infrastructure?"

 

Improving the Shoreway has been discussed forever, particularly regarding the E 9th on/off ramps. Right now the walk down E 9th is much too pedestrian unfriendly.

 

Sorry, I misunderstood your comment.  I thought you were talking about improving highway access to the property, not people access... carry on.

I've long hoped that the future shoreway would involve tearing down the bridge and designing a boulevard through the flats with a very large lift bridge (see Chicago pic below). Maybe the Cuyahoga River is too wide...

 

http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/bridge-lifts-day-in-chicago-sven-brogren.jpg

I've long hoped that the future shoreway would involve tearing down the bridge and designing a boulevard through the flats with a very large lift bridge (see Chicago pic below). Maybe the Cuyahoga River is too wide...

 

http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/bridge-lifts-day-in-chicago-sven-brogren.jpg

 

 

NO....just No!  the bridge can stay, but anything EAST of the West 6 exit of the Shoreway should be torn down.  This will allow for the lakefront and downtown/downtown adjacent neighborhoods to easily access the lakefront.

OK, back to actual project....

 

Will #Cleveland let a hotel block views of @rock_hall & Lake Erie? http://t.co/dvIMUxOiNj @joecimperman @lilliankuri http://t.co/OmyZAODBq6

^ block views? I thought that the hotel would go between the Rock Hall and GLSC. That would hardly block the view.

OK, back to actual project....

 

Will #Cleveland let a hotel block views of @rock_hall & Lake Erie? http://t.co/dvIMUxOiNj @joecimperman @lilliankuri http://t.co/OmyZAODBq6

 

I was skeptical, but Litt brings up a pretty good argument. Certainly at some point some of the views that we're used to are going to be altered. I think we're all aware of that, and accepting of it. However a six story hotel in such close proximity of the Rock Hall, well, that just doesn't appear to be a good fit. Anything built between the Science Center and Rock Hall probably should be low rise, maybe three stories maximum.

 

One major point of the article concerns the Pedestrian bridge. Litt seems to confirm my fear that the rush job will result in poor, disjointed planning that we'll come to regret later. Whose job is it to make sure that all stakeholders are on the same page?

 

Lastly, who are we to rely on to make sure that the new projects:

 

1. foster better connection between attractions while

2. protect public access to the water?

 

Once again I feel we in Cleveland are at the mercy of a developer to protect our interests. The article flat out mentions that the proposed hotel height and location are against the guidelines set forth in the existing (and sadly toothless) Lakefront Plan.

^ block views? I thought that the hotel would go between the Rock Hall and GLSC. That would hardly block the view.

 

Every building built between existing structures and the water will block "someone's" view. It's the downside of lakefront development. The upside is that having a view gives people a reason to want to be a tenant in these new buildings -- or add even more man-made shoreline!

^^The master plan doesn't have any force of law, but but I'm guessing City Council will need to sign off on any development proposals here, either under the terms of the lease or as part of the subsidies the developer will ask for.  That doesn't necessarily make me feel better about the design quality, but I doubt the developer really has full discretion.

 

Ugh, North Coast Harbor is such a design clusterf*ck.  My first thought was to agree with Litt, but now I'm wondering just how much I really care about the views from the mall and Hilton specifically of the R&RHof, as opposed to the waterfront more generally (which could still be fine, I'd guess).  I'm pretty sure I don't care so much about the views from NHC back to City Hall specifically.  I think it makes sense to protect the integrity of the R&RHof's icon value, which means not crowding it too much from certain vantagepoints, but otherwise I don't see much of value at NCH we need to worry about ruining.

 

The interaction with the bridge is definitely tricky though.  If there were certainty that the hotel would be built, so there weren't sequencing problems, I don't think it would be too hard to find a design that works. The idea of a public pedestrian bridge dropping people into or through a hotel lobby doesn't bother me in the least as long as the city negotiates appropriate public access and the full sequence to the water is direct, obvious, and attractive. Would sure make the hotel more viable to have direct access to the CC.

I was skeptical, but Litt brings up a pretty good argument. Certainly at some point some of the views that we're used to are going to be altered. I think we're all aware of that, and accepting of it. However a six story hotel in such close proximity of the Rock Hall, well, that just doesn't appear to be a good fit. Anything built between the Science Center and Rock Hall probably should be low rise, maybe three stories maximum.

 

One major point of the article concerns the Pedestrian bridge. Litt seems to confirm my fear that the rush job will result in poor, disjointed planning that we'll come to regret later. Whose job is it to make sure that all stakeholders are on the same page?

 

Lastly, who are we to rely on to make sure that the new projects:

 

1. foster better connection between attractions while

2. protect public access to the water?

 

Once again I feel we in Cleveland are at the mercy of a developer to protect our interests. The article flat out mentions that the proposed hotel height and location are against the guidelines set forth in the existing (and sadly toothless) Lakefront Plan.

 

You bring up some good points. There seems to be a lot of disparate projects along the lakefront. And despite the Lakefront plan, there seems to be a good chance something will be left undone or done poorly. I expect the transportation center will be the odd man out, but we'll see.

 

An unusual problem to have, though. Too much happening too quickly.

This view from Browns stadium may not be possible much longer due to a $600 million, multi-phase, mixed-use development that will start east in this view and work its way west (left) out of view.

Whatever comes of this project, I just hope a good portion of the physical waterfront is accessible to the general public. It wouldn't be so exciting to have the water lined with nothing but private balconies, boat docks and other exclusive, pay-to-play uses. We would be back to square one without an open waterfront.

I can't imagine that any part of the waterfront downtown would be "privatized".  I would be absolutely shocked if that were to happen.

Their intent has always been to have a public boardwalk along the water.

Blocking views from Browns stadium don't bother me.  It shouldn't have been built there in the first place.  And even though it's "public" you have to pay to get in to see those views.  If there's a boardwalk along the edges of the port, I'll be satisfied.

 

Regarding the hotel between the science center and the Rock Hall, I think a much better spot would be on top of the Science Center garage.  You wouldn't be messing with something iconic like the IM Pei designed Rock Hall and the height won't be as much of an issue since it's right next to the stadium.

From Litt's article:

 

"Pace said he sees the waterfront as a mixed-use neighborhood wedged around FirstEnergy Stadium and the Science Center. He sees strong possibilities for 1,000 apartments, offices, retail stores and even a K-8 school and early childhood center.

 

He believes that carefully designed buildings and landscaping could mitigate the harsh winter weather on the shoreline. A public boardwalk with a minimum width of 40 feet would ensure public access to the water's edge."

 

I'm not sure if that means that Pace is planning on having a 40 foot boardwalk or if Litt is suggesting it.

They could build a hotel on empty lot on Euclid or Prospect.  Or on Willard Park, a 90s former potential site for Hilton.

Honestly, I think they should build something like this between the science center and the Rock Hall:

 

 

:evil:

Oh no, not the Rockometer again!

Thank god that died.

Honestly, I think they should build something like this between the science center and the Rock Hall:

 

 

>:D

That's a relief regarding the public boardwalk. The site plans from a few pages back showed the apartments quite close to the water.

 

Definitely not the Rockometer, but I would like to see a dedicated outdoor concert venue somewhere close to the Rock Hall, or at least something that can easily be converted to public space when there are no concerts.

That's a relief regarding the public boardwalk. The site plans from a few pages back showed the apartments quite close to the water.

 

Definitely not the Rockometer, but I would like to see a dedicated outdoor concert venue somewhere close to the Rock Hall, or at least something that can easily be converted to public space when there are no concerts.

 

Not to take this too far off topic but I've been told that Cleveland is missing a venue in size between the Wolstein and Masonic auditorium.  Jacob's pavilion is less than halfway between but still not quite big enough and obviously can't be used in the winter months. I think near the Rock Hall would be a perfect location for such a venue.

Beachland Ballroom?

Agora?

House of Blues?

 

musky[/member] all of which have a capacity at or below 1000 people.

^Public Hall?

Keith[/member] great point!  I am not sure why they don't utilize this building more often.  I know they want to have it available for conventions but it seems very underutilized.  I have no idea how credible the person is that was talking to me about the topic but they mentioned that some mid-sized shows skip over Cleveland because of the lack of a suitable sized venue.

House of Blues is about 1,400.  Agora is a bit north of 2,000.  Not sure about Beachland Ballroom.

musky[/member] all of which have a capacity at or below 1000 people.

 

 

Ah, ok.  Did not know what the target maximum occupancy was.

 

Public Hall is a great space.

House of Blues is about 1,400.  Agora is a bit north of 2,000.  Not sure about Beachland Ballroom.

 

 

And there you go :)

That's a relief regarding the public boardwalk. The site plans from a few pages back showed the apartments quite close to the water.

 

Definitely not the Rockometer, but I would like to see a dedicated outdoor concert venue somewhere close to the Rock Hall, or at least something that can easily be converted to public space when there are no concerts.

 

Not to take this too far off topic but I've been told that Cleveland is missing a venue in size between the Wolstein and Masonic auditorium.  Jacob's pavilion is less than halfway between but still not quite big enough and obviously can't be used in the winter months. I think near the Rock Hall would be a perfect location for such a venue.

 

Public Hall and Music Hall are both in the size range you seek, and blocks away from your proposed location.

Public Hall = Intractable local union workers.

It's not that the hall is unavailable, it's that nobody wants to use it because it is such a misery to do so.

 

(and when this post gets a bloody hatchet for being way off topic, I will totally understand)

X[/member] I appreciate you giving those correct numbers.  However, I was talking in the 5,000-10,000 range.  Anyway as one of the mods will soon be saying BACK ON TOPIC!!

 

I am sure most of you have already read mjarboe[/member] article today concerning possible parking solutions for the Cleveland convention district.  A parking study by Desman Associates centers mostly on Willard/Huntington and the proposed inter-model parking deck. They conclude that the lakefront parking structure is not feasible and they advise against it, which I take issue with. But they do recommend a few mostly short term fixes. Make sure you download the Desman study,  there are graphics and proposals we have not seen yet. And one interesting note in the comment section,  Michelle said that Jeff Applebaum indicates there are discussions of a parking garage in the Warehouse District involving first floor retail.

And one possible parking structure Michelle did not mention is the one that Stark proposes as part of the Nucleus development. Stark did mention recently that he hopes to have the parking component mostly complete in time for the RNC. And Stark said it so it must be true!

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2014/09/parking_upgrades_not_construct.html#incart_river

 

http://media.cleveland.com/business_impact/other/FINAL%20LAKEFRONT%20PARKING%20STUDY%20REPORT%209-9-14%20corrected.pdf

^ The short-term solutions sound good. I am disappointed they dismissed the transportation center. But it sounded like their garage proposal that didn't get the TIGER grant was halfhearted anyway.

 

^ The short-term solutions sound good. I am disappointed they dismissed the transportation center. But it sounded like their garage proposal that didn't get the TIGER grant was halfhearted anyway.

 

 

Not if you ask CPC staff. They thought it was the cats-ass and can't understand why USDOT didn't fund it. Maybe if they had visited some transportation centers in cities like Milwaukee, St. Louis or Rochester, they might have come up with a plan that won funding.

Not if you ask CPC staff. They thought it was the cats-ass and can't understand why USDOT didn't fund it. Maybe if they had visited some transportation centers in cities like Milwaukee, St. Louis or Rochester, they might have come up with a plan that won funding.

 

Our leaders lack vision and don't have the right people in their ear. What else is new?

Cleveland's Burke Lakefront Airport to serve as 'incubator' for start-ups

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Cleveland's Burke Lakefront Airport could be on its way to becoming an incubator for start-ups looking to eventually rent space at a Geis Cos. office park, soon to be built on adjacent land.

 

Cleveland City Council approved legislation Monday authorizing the city to spend as much as $1 million to conduct an assessment and to design improvements to Burke's terminal building in an effort to of attract new business tenants.

 

...Smith said he does not want the terminal to compete with the office park Geis is designing for 20 acres southwest of the airport. Rather, the city hopes that businesses will grow at the airport facility and eventually become tenants in the Geis building.

Cleveland's Burke Lakefront Airport to serve as 'incubator' for start-ups

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Cleveland's Burke Lakefront Airport could be on its way to becoming an incubator for start-ups looking to eventually rent space at a Geis Cos. office park, soon to be built on adjacent land.

 

Cleveland City Council approved legislation Monday authorizing the city to spend as much as $1 million to conduct an assessment and to design improvements to Burke's terminal building in an effort to of attract new business tenants.

 

...Smith said he does not want the terminal to compete with the office park Geis is designing for 20 acres southwest of the airport. Rather, the city hopes that businesses will grow at the airport facility and eventually become tenants in the Geis building.

 

Here: http://www.freshwatercleveland.com/devnews/?page=all&tags=Entrepreneurs+%2B+Innovators

 

Edit: whoops, wrong link! Here it is: http://www.cleveland.com/cityhall/index.ssf/2014/10/clevelands_burke_lakefront_air.html

 

The first link is the Hornblower's renovation by LeanDog and AKA

^^^^Good idea.  And offer free landing fees for venture capitalists and their jets willing to fund said start ups.  Make it easy for them to visit their creations!  :clap:

mjarboe[/member] hard at work tweeting from the GCMBACleve. With information regarding Dick Pace/Cumberland and lakefront development. Thnx Michelle! https://twitter.com/mjarboe

 

Michelle J. McFee mjarboe[/member]  ·  5h 5 hours ago

#CLE lakefront developer Pace wants to enhance Mather's revenue stream. Looking at adding restaurant. Talks w/ @GLScienceCtr. @GCMBACleve

 

Michelle J. McFee mjarboe[/member]  ·  5h 5 hours ago

#CLE lakefront developer Pace says residential shouldn't compete w/ Flats East. Staggered timing. Office could go head-to-head. @GCMBACleve

 

Michelle J. McFee mjarboe[/member]  ·  6h 6 hours ago

#CLE lakefront developer Pace expects to request TIF for infrastructure. Believes mayor will support if schools held harmless. @GCMBACleve

 

Michelle J. McFee mjarboe[/member]  ·  6h 6 hours ago

If Flats East Bank team hadn't suffered, persevered, I wouldn't be able to do #CLE lakefront, developer Pace says. @GCMBACleve

 

Michelle J. McFee mjarboe[/member]  ·  6h 6 hours ago

#CLE lakefront developer wishes pedestrian link from Malls to N. Coast Harbor would be more park than bridge. Like High Line. @GCMBACleve

 

Michelle J. McFee mjarboe[/member]  ·  6h 6 hours ago

Pedestrian bridge from downtown #CLE Malls to North Coast Harbor = good, Pace says. But, alone, won't solve connectivity issues. @GCMBACleve

 

Michelle J. McFee mjarboe[/member]  ·  6h 6 hours ago

Questioning no-orange-barrels mandate, #CLE lakefront developer says there should be some construction during RNC. Growth sign. @GCMBACleve

 

Michelle J. McFee mjarboe[/member]  ·  6h 6 hours ago

Don't want #CLE lakefront to look like monolithic project, Dick Pace says. Should be organic neighborhood, w/ many architects. @GCMBACleve

 

Michelle J. McFee mjarboe[/member]  ·  6h 6 hours ago

#CLE lakefront developer Pace says parts of project, along E 9th St pier, could be done by 2016 RNC. Full project w/ 7-yr build. @GCMBACleve

 

Michelle J. McFee mjarboe[/member]  ·  6h 6 hours ago

Residential plan for downtown #CLE lakefront contemplates 250 units in phase 1; 400 in phase 2; 400 in phase 3, developer says. @GCMBACleve

 

Michelle J. McFee mjarboe[/member]  ·  6h 6 hours ago

Downtown #CLE lakefront will be place where people are on bikes, jogging on trails, in kayaks. Very active, says developer. @GCMBACleve

 

Michelle J. McFee mjarboe[/member]  ·  6h 6 hours ago

At @GCMBACleve event, where #CLE lakefront developer Dick Pace says he hopes to offer bicycle rental, repair, possibly sales at project.

^ Lots of good stuff here, thanks for posting.

I was following that too while at meetings about different lakefront stuff -- ie: the multimodal station. Might be a ray of light there.

My wish of wishes....that it does not look ANYTHING like Cincy's Banks project...what a major missed opportunity down there.

My wish of wishes....that it does not look ANYTHING like Cincy's Banks project...what a major missed opportunity down there.

 

The Banks looks so auto centric. While the lakefront has to be accessible to cars/visitors, the place absolutely has to be pedestrian oriented.

My wish of wishes....that it does not look ANYTHING like Cincy's Banks project...what a major missed opportunity down there.

 

How is it a missed opportunity? It's not even nearly built out and finished yet. Still an office tower, a hotel and lots of apartments to come. Yes, the architecture is lacking for some of the buildings, but the Smale riverfront park is amazing and keeps getting better.