51 thousand sq ft

So this is an image from a CBRE listing showing the proposed Cumberland/Trammel development on the lakefront. What is interesting is that this was updated just recently from a residential heavy  site plan with little parking to what is proposed below. It now features almost 1 mill sq ft of office and 4000 parking spaces.  So this is clearly put together for either MM or SW,  I would think MM is their likely target.

 

http://www.loopnet.com/xNet/Looplink/Profile/Profile.aspx?LID=20058778&STID=CB0003&LL=true

I would be OK with that if it is a mixed-use plan with some retail and they need to maintain a public boardwalk along the lake.  I don't want this to turn into a "gated" office community.

Hopefully those two hulking parking garages have ground level retail. If that's the case, this could be a pretty nice lakefront development.

^ I think the Planning Commission should insist upon it.  Maybe, I'll reach out to Dick Pace to give him my unsolicited opinion.

So this is an image from a CBRE listing showing the proposed Cumberland/Trammel development on the lakefront. What is interesting is that this was updated just recently from a residential heavy  site plan with little parking to what is proposed below. It now features almost 1 mill sq ft of office and 4000 parking spaces.  So this is clearly put together for either MM or SW,  I would think MM is their likely target.

 

http://www.loopnet.com/xNet/Looplink/Profile/Profile.aspx?LID=20058778&STID=CB0003&LL=true

 

I'll bet that's exactly what they're after, or back-office relocations from the East Coast. And I still think TransDigm is bound to outgrow their Erieview offices any day now.

Hopefully those two hulking parking garages have ground level retail. If that's the case, this could be a pretty nice lakefront development.

 

Exactly. If there's no retail, then what's the purpose of building in that location?

what kind of retail are you guys thinking of?

what kind of retail are you guys thinking of?

 

Not a shopping mecca full of chains, but something conducive to a lively and family-friendly waterfront.   

^ At minimum, some dining options for the office space and residents.

Does anyone know why the Edgewater beach house wasn't built for year round use? I'm kind of surprised that there is no enclosed portion for people to enjoy during the cold months.

Does anyone know why the Edgewater beach house wasn't built for year round use? I'm kind of surprised that there is no enclosed portion for people to enjoy during the cold months.

 

Cleveland doesn't know how to celebrate and enjoy winter like Minneapolis, Toronto, Montreal, etc. Kids go sledding on the hill next to the beach house all the time. Would have made a great place for a hot chocolate stand, warming station, central fireplace, sled rental, etc.

The original version of the beachhouse from Bialosky had the second floor enclosed in glass. Then it was delayed for 6 months as cost estimates were not working out. It looks like it was a trade-off as the money went to landscaping, parking and the round a bout. A missed opportunity as it would have made a great year round event space.

I agree....another missed opportunity on the Lake, just like the missed opportunity on Public Square keeping the center road open for the buses. They should have kept it closed.

Stop. There's no correlation between the two. Transit has traveled through Public Square for 180 of its 220 years and built this city into a more walkable, high density, vibrant place. By comparison, this is a new bathhouse where one has been lacking for the past 70 years. And the prior one was enclosed.

Does anyone know why the Edgewater beach house wasn't built for year round use? I'm kind of surprised that there is no enclosed portion for people to enjoy during the cold months.

 

Cleveland doesn't know how to celebrate and enjoy winter

 

That's because there's enough decent weather interspersed to remind us how awful the bad parts are.  Hating it is part of our civic character.

That's because there's enough decent weather interspersed to remind us how awful the bad parts are.  Hating it is part of our civic character.

 

If true, how does that help our economic development and quality of life?

Does anyone know why the Edgewater beach house wasn't built for year round use? I'm kind of surprised that there is no enclosed portion for people to enjoy during the cold months.

 

Cleveland doesn't know how to celebrate and enjoy winter like Minneapolis, Toronto, Montreal, etc.

 

You're right. But after experiencing winter in those places, the weather up north, though colder, is more conducive to being outdoors. Perhaps because the snow season is more reliable and the weather patterns are more stable?

 

On a positive note, I believe Cleveland is finally embracing fall. For so many years bars and restaurants seemingly closed their outdoor seating right after September 1st. It's like hey, we still have two months of great weather! 

 

 

So this is an image from a CBRE listing showing the proposed Cumberland/Trammel development on the lakefront. What is interesting is that this was updated just recently from a residential heavy  site plan with little parking to what is proposed below. It now features almost 1 mill sq ft of office and 4000 parking spaces.  So this is clearly put together for either MM or SW,  I would think MM is their likely target.

 

http://www.loopnet.com/xNet/Looplink/Profile/Profile.aspx?LID=20058778&STID=CB0003&LL=true

 

I thought both pedestrian bridges were basically nixed?

They're still trying to figure out how to build a less iconic, more affordable bridge from the convention center to North Coast Harbor (I've recently shared my idea with the planning team -- see posting above https://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,3638.msg855279.html#msg855279).

 

Not sure about the status of the bridge across the mouth of the harbor.

That's because there's enough decent weather interspersed to remind us how awful the bad parts are.  Hating it is part of our civic character.

 

If true, how does that help our economic development and quality of life?

 

I'm not saying it does, I'm saying I believe it's so deep seated it's something we have to work with.

Does anyone know why the Edgewater beach house wasn't built for year round use? I'm kind of surprised that there is no enclosed portion for people to enjoy during the cold months.

 

Cleveland doesn't know how to celebrate and enjoy winter like Minneapolis, Toronto, Montreal, etc.

 

You're right. But after experiencing winter in those places, the weather up north, though colder, is more conducive to being outdoors. Perhaps because the snow season is more reliable and the weather patterns are more stable?

 

Yep.  There's "Lake Effect" as well.  Weather can semi-randomly interfere with plans and people resent that.  Plus the "hey, it's winter why are you complaining?" people do more harm than good.

My source tells me the North Coast Harbor bridge is now officially dead. I actually think is great news, as the design had been continually dumbed down until it was no longer a thing of beauty. I'd rather they spend that $ on ways to connect the lakefront to downtown, but it probably isn't that easy.  :wink:

I know I am in the substantial minority here. But I would love to see more foliage directly adjacent to the lake, perhaps a sizable urban park - obviously not a Boston Common or anything like that, but something that will look nice in the fall, impede wind bursts in the winter, and encourage foot traffic to the lake shore around downtown.

I know I am in the substantial minority here. But I would love to see more foliage directly adjacent to the lake, perhaps a sizable urban park - obviously not a Boston Common or anything like that, but something that will look nice in the fall, impede wind bursts in the winter, and encourage foot traffic to the lake shore around downtown.

 

I agree.  I think the last thing we need to do it fill our lakefront with crappy nightclub districts that'll be popular for 3-5 years at best and flashy but poorly built condos and office parks. We should take a page out of Chicago's book and put parks up and down the entire shoreline.  That seems to be working alright for them. 

While there are numerous aspects of the CHI lakefront I feel we should emulate, I don't think the answer is as simple as adding park space. Chicagoan's have the advantage of being physically closer to their waterfront. On the other hand, Cleveland is much more separate from the lakefront. We are going to need more residential infrastructure to bridge the gaps.

While there are numerous aspects of the CHI lakefront I feel we should emulate, I don't think the answer is as simple as adding park space. Chicagoan's have the advantage of being physically closer to their waterfront. On the other hand, Cleveland is much more separate from the lakefront. We are going to need more residential infrastructure to bridge the gaps.

 

Theoretically, wouldn't parks and recreational space also bridge the gap?

While there are numerous aspects of the CHI lakefront I feel we should emulate, I don't think the answer is as simple as adding park space. Chicagoan's have the advantage of being physically closer to their waterfront. On the other hand, Cleveland is much more separate from the lakefront. We are going to need more residential infrastructure to bridge the gaps.

 

Theoretically, wouldn't parks and recreational space also bridge the gap?

 

It depends. Voinovich Park is really cool, for example. But it's often cited as an under performing asset because for so long there was nothing around it, it felt completely isolated. Same could be said for Dyke 14.

 

We really need better access and connectivity. The nature of our coastline makes this a difficult proposition. It's not an impossible hurdle, but we'll need a really great master plan.

 

I'm not sure what the exactly right mix is. Contiguous park space would be a catalyst, surely. But I still don't think park space alone is enough of a draw. We should be building on the near-universal principle that people want to live by the water. 

I know I am in the substantial minority here. But I would love to see more foliage directly adjacent to the lake, perhaps a sizable urban park - obviously not a Boston Common or anything like that, but something that will look nice in the fall, impede wind bursts in the winter, and encourage foot traffic to the lake shore around downtown.

 

I agree.  I think the last thing we need to do it fill our lakefront with crappy nightclub districts that'll be popular for 3-5 years at best and flashy but poorly built condos and office parks. We should take a page out of Chicago's book and put parks up and down the entire shoreline.  That seems to be working alright for them.

 

Yeah it would be awful to build things that people would enjoy and actually come to and spend money at. We don't need more parties like the one Shaq threw at Barley House last night. Who needs entertainment anyway? Who wants a cool image? Who wants something attractive to people that want a nightlife and actually want to feel like they live in a big city? Let's just put a park there. That's an excellent use of the shoreline

I know I am in the substantial minority here. But I would love to see more foliage directly adjacent to the lake, perhaps a sizable urban park - obviously not a Boston Common or anything like that, but something that will look nice in the fall, impede wind bursts in the winter, and encourage foot traffic to the lake shore around downtown.

 

I agree.  I think the last thing we need to do it fill our lakefront with crappy nightclub districts that'll be popular for 3-5 years at best and flashy but poorly built condos and office parks. We should take a page out of Chicago's book and put parks up and down the entire shoreline.  That seems to be working alright for them.

 

Yeah it would be awful to build things that people would enjoy and actually come to and spend money at. We don't need more parties like the one Shaq threw at Barley House last night. Who needs entertainment anyway? Who wants a cool image? Who wants something attractive to people that want a nightlife and actually want to feel like they live in a big city? Let's just put a park there. That's an excellent use of the shoreline

 

Who hurt you?

To steer the conversation away from petty comments, let's remember that The Flats was essentially what Motorist[/member] described. Maybe it didn't fail in 3 to 5 years, but there was an over-abundance of nightclubs and saloons that led to crime and quality of life issues. The balance in this round of developments (in The Flats) is far better and is geared to not just day/night establishments, but to residents.

 

I look forward to a day when the Lake Erie shoreline isn't all private. The vast majority of the land adjoining Lake Erie in Ohio is private, not public, and the number of parks is paltry at best.

To steer the conversation away from petty comments, let's remember that The Flats was essentially what Motorist[/member] described. Maybe it didn't fail in 3 to 5 years, but there was an over-abundance of nightclubs and saloons that led to crime and quality of life issues. The balance in this round of developments (in The Flats) is far better and is geared to not just day/night establishments, but to residents.

 

I look forward to a day when the Lake Erie shoreline isn't all private. The vast majority of the land adjoining Lake Erie in Ohio is private, not public, and the number of parks is paltry at best.

 

No no, I agree. Was just trying to bring humor, not be petty.

 

My entire point is that this does not have to be binary along the lakeshore. I think real property development and recreational spaces can work together and I think they SHOULD in our situation.

 

Sorry for the unchecked "humor"

Oh, thanks for the clarification YABO713[/member] :)

 

And I agree. It doesn't have to be black or white. I think Edgewater is a great example of a public park with some private uses that works well.

To steer the conversation away from petty comments, let's remember that The Flats was essentially what Motorist[/member] described. Maybe it didn't fail in 3 to 5 years, but there was an over-abundance of nightclubs and saloons that led to crime and quality of life issues. The balance in this round of developments (in The Flats) is far better and is geared to not just day/night establishments, but to residents.

 

I look forward to a day when the Lake Erie shoreline isn't all private. The vast majority of the land adjoining Lake Erie in Ohio is private, not public, and the number of parks is paltry at best.

 

 

Clubs and entertainment is a good use of the lakeshore and riverfront downtown, as is landmarks but we've got that covered.  To the west you have Edgewater , to the east the airport then Gordon Park  Then Bratenhal, which is a great thing to have if you have people working downtown that are higher SES.  It's close in, not "sprawl" but it has what most of those people who want a little elbow room are going to demand (and will live in the exurbs if it's unavailable close).  Then the water treatment plant.  Then you have middle to even lower middle class near me.  East of that is the public housing where Euclid Beach Park used to be, I'm not a big fan of that being there but it's not going anywhere anytime soon and I'd rather expend the political capital replacing Lakeview Terrace which is adjacent to a more thriving area and is, quite frankly, a millstone around same.  Then you have Wildwood Park, then Euclid.  Which mostly has houses, but has parks as well.

 

I'm not as familiar with the west side beyond Edgewater, just Gold Coast which of course isn't going anywhere.

 

By no means "all" private, but certainly if it's in demand for residences that's going to be filled and indeed it's a plus for Cleveland.

I'm not as familiar with the west side beyond Edgewater, just Gold Coast which of course isn't going anywhere.

 

On the west side you have Lakewood Park, Rocky River Park, Bradstreet's Landing, Columbia Park and finally Huntington Beach (the largest public lakefront park on the west side after Edgewater). Other than that the lakefront is almost entirely private residences and beaches.

While there are numerous aspects of the CHI lakefront I feel we should emulate, I don't think the answer is as simple as adding park space. Chicagoan's have the advantage of being physically closer to their waterfront. On the other hand, Cleveland is much more separate from the lakefront. We are going to need more residential infrastructure to bridge the gaps.

 

Chicago does have the advantage that it is built up pretty densely right up to the park but I'm sure that part of the reason that it's so dense along the park is because the park is there.  Like Cleveland, Chicago has a highway cutting between the parks and the rest of the city.  So we know it's not an impossible situation.  And despite the lack of privately owned entertainment options in the parks, they are packed with people on any nice day like today. 

My source tells me the North Coast Harbor bridge is now officially dead. I actually think is great news, as the design had been continually dumbed down until it was no longer a thing of beauty. I'd rather they spend that $ on ways to connect the lakefront to downtown, but it probably isn't that easy.  :wink:

 

How much would it cost to reroute all those freight trains south around downtown.  KJP may have an answer... :)

How much would it cost to reroute all those freight trains south around downtown.  KJP may have an answer... :)

 

Not only that, I researched and authored the only known study on it, which was discussed here on UO at:

 

https://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,10544.0.html

^^ as suspected!  I'd still like to see that plan pursued.  Rereading that thread it makes even more sense now with the hundreds of millions in housing investments going in along those tracks.

Can someone explain why so little is  going on in terms of development on the lakefront?  There were some very cool renderings or ideas that never happened - I guess we got a much smaller apartment building and a Mexican restaurant behind the rock hall but scaled way down.  And then there was the ugly outlet mall that I thought was completely misplaced being on the lakefront-  ugh.  What efforts to create something really special on the lakefront, if any, are going on at this point?

I believe the Rockometer is still on the table.

Can someone explain why so little is  going on in terms of development on the lakefront?  There were some very cool renderings or ideas that never happened - I guess we got a much smaller apartment building and a Mexican restaurant behind the rock hall but scaled way down.  And then there was the ugly outlet mall that I thought was completely misplaced being on the lakefront-  ugh.  What efforts to create something really special on the lakefront, if any, are going on at this point?

 

Cumberland is focusing heavily on trying to get a major office tenant or two into their development, as Freethink posted earlier at: https://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,3638.msg857536.html#msg857536

 

Medical Mutual is likely their main target right now, and possibly Sherwin Williams as well. Note that they list on loopnet one available office space at 750,000 sf. There aren't many potential office tenants who could fill a space that big. If they can get one of these major office tenants, it will boost the rest of their development.

Thanks KJP I had missed that post by FreeThink. Wow that Cumberland proposal looks almost industrial and extremely unattractive - I wish that development on downtowns lake front was more hotel, tourist and/or entertainment oriented - Perhaps a unique mixed use dining/retail center along the lines of say, Inner Harbor in Baltimore.  I know we have the Flats kind of serving that function as well but I think Cleveland is still missing the true potential of its fabulous lakefront.  Seems like the rock hall and science center would greatly benefit from shopping areas adjacent - not an outlet mall but something unique that could hold people for lunch or dinner and shopping. Rather see the office space go vertical in any other areas of downtown.

Unfortunately,  that part of the Lakefront is so removed from the rest of Downtown....I don't see how they ever make it successful.  I was on bike ride Sunday at North Coast Harbor, and its incredible how little of the lakefront is even accessible by bike. 

Unfortunately,  that part of the Lakefront is so removed from the rest of Downtown....I don't see how they ever make it successful. 

 

Exactly.  It would be a total waste to locate that much office space here.  It should be more concentrated in the core not spread all about to create even more islands downtown. 

 

Unfortunately,  that part of the Lakefront is so removed from the rest of Downtown....I don't see how they ever make it successful. 

 

Exactly.  It would be a total waste to locate that much office space here.  It should be more concentrated in the core not spread all about to create even more islands downtown. 

 

 

Office space could be part of a successful mixed use. But I agree, we don't need another post 5pm dead zone. The lakefront won't succeed with a "beggars can't be choosy" attitude. The plan for our languishing waterfront has to be a great one.

The new proposal is a serious downgrade in my mind from what TC was proposing originally; a far cry from the neighborhood of 1,000 apts.  In the latest rendering, the parking garage is practically the largest structure on the site -- so much development in this town is driven by the availability of convenient, cheap parking...  I thought the goal was to finally open our lakefront for more residential uses a la Chicago and Toronto, not exchange one kind of commercial use (industrial) for another (sterile offices).

I totally agree with Clvlndr and Surf Ohio - why have that office space down on the lakefront, very disconnected - an "island" away  from most of the retail, restaurants and shops that workers would easily access across the tracks, in downtown. That lakefront proposal would be  a dark zone after 5pm and become its own self contained "office park" -  an awkward, if not ugly juxtaposition to the elegant Science Center, RHOF and even Browns Stadium ( I hate that stadium location too but thats off topic)  Although I'd love that part of lakefront as a dynamic  space for tourists and locals to visit, dine and shop in , I'd gladly take a neighborhood of 1,000 apartments, originally imagined. just not this  office concept that seems to be on the table.  This is one project I'm really hoping does not happen. 

Unfortunately,  that part of the Lakefront is so removed from the rest of Downtown....I don't see how they ever make it successful. 

 

Exactly.  It would be a total waste to locate that much office space here.  It should be more concentrated in the core not spread all about to create even more islands downtown.

I wouldn't say the FEB is all that accessible to the rest of downtown and there's offices and apartments there. 

 

We were down there last night, and I was shocked at how many people were playing volleyball at 10pm.  There was literally a line of teams waiting their turn.  The Mexican restaurant was jammed too.  Probably my proudest moment as a Clevelander.  It proved that if you build it they will come...in Cleveland.  And that is if you build it right with enough mixed use.  While we were there, people were getting off the Goodtime, getting off they're boat, the group next to us just landed at Burke, and people were playing volleyball.

^^ It absolutely  could be a very successful area....but only if Cleveland reverses the population trend and starts adding massive amounts of people.  (and jobs...and new companies) Unfortunately, any new mixed use area takes people from an existing one.  Its a shell game.