I think the FAA guy was playing with Pace a little. But he was trying to make a point that they're being a little tougher on air space regulations lately.

Curious about your opening paragraph, @KJP- that one of the reasons for not selling could be the value of the land, depending on Burke's future.  Isn't that a really really long term possibility of very slim chances?   Isn't it much more likely that the only motivating reason is to simply take the properties off of a very cold market, just as one might temporarily take a house that's not moving off the listings? 

 

Or - and this would be news! -do you think they might have heard some whispers from insiders about the likely future of Burke?  

Edited November 18, 20222 yr by CleveFan

@CleveFan  Real estate listings don't usually increase prices. However they do after they've been taken off the market for a while if they expect a change in the market, surrounding conditions, etc. Given the studies involving the fate of Burke and current interest rates, I think this was a smart move by Pace.

I think that’s the major angle the consortium of interests around Burke need to take. Burke directly affects the viability of developing anything of scale north of the Shoreway. Without scale and density, there’s no way developing that land feasibly. 

 

Throw in the cost and purpose of the land bridge….. What are we bridging to if the FAA won’t let us build anything over 50 feet?

 

Burke has to go.

Flats' developments are very piecemeal with much of East and West still wasteland, Whiskey Island is an industrial mess with no hints of development, there have been failed projects for DECADES by the Browns stadium, and there is virtually nothing at the 55th marina.

 

We barely have interest in developing around water as it is, so what is the likelhoood that 450 additional acres would be any different. Sure it would be nice to have a Central Park, Boston Commons, Grant Park, Veterans Park, etc, but we can't even develop the current existing land by the lake and river.

 

Burke isn't going anywhere, and if it were, I'm still pretty bearish. The city needs leadership and ultra wealthy visionaries to make this happen. 

8 minutes ago, TBideon said:

We barely have interest in developing around water as it is...   

Well, it's not just developing around water.  Huge parking craters have existed downtown for decades. Thank God some of them are finally going away thanks to SHW and City Club.  One difference is Burke is on city property, not privately owned.   

54 minutes ago, marty15 said:

I think that’s the major angle the consortium of interests around Burke need to take. Burke directly affects the viability of developing anything of scale north of the Shoreway. Without scale and density, there’s no way developing that land feasibly. 

 

Throw in the cost and purpose of the land bridge….. What are we bridging to if the FAA won’t let us build anything over 50 feet?

 

Burke has to go.

 

The height restriction is literally on that little patch of land at Voinovich park which is under the RSA for runway 6L, not everything north of the Shoreway.   How else would you explain the stadium, the Rock Hall and the E&Y buildings, all built north of the road?   

The Rock Hall was supposed to be taller, but it had to be shortened when they decided to move it to the harbor.

 

Edited November 18, 20222 yr by LibertyBlvd

someone on here has a graphic of the runway cone.  you can build taller as you move away from the runway.  I'm not sure you'd see construction much taller than the stadium even without the restrictions. 

Edited November 18, 20222 yr by Whipjacka

1 hour ago, Whipjacka said:

someone on here has a graphic of the runway cone.  you can build taller as you move away from the runway.  I'm not sure you'd see construction much taller than the stadium even without the restrictions. 

My personal opinion is everything that sits north of the shoreway (even if the shoreway is removed one day) should be converted to either park land or have some sort of "public" benefit like a museum or the rock hall. There's plenty of opportunity for high rises sitting on the muni lot. Probably better dirt to dig in too. There's just far too much land that's already raised high up on a bluff that's prime for high rises views. Why not open the low land for the public benefit?

28 minutes ago, KFM44107 said:

My personal opinion is everything that sits north of the shoreway (even if the shoreway is removed one day) should be converted to either park land or have some sort of "public" benefit like a museum or the rock hall. There's plenty of opportunity for high rises sitting on the muni lot. Probably better dirt to dig in too. There's just far too much land that's already raised high up on a bluff that's prime for high rises views. Why not open the low land for the public benefit?

 

Esplanade-style park lined with low rise mixed-use FTW

 

Edited November 18, 20222 yr by ASP1984

2 hours ago, LibertyBlvd said:

The Rock Hall was supposed to be taller, but it had to be shortened when they decided to move it to the harbor.

 

By 38'....

 

I fly into BKL all the time including runway 6R and the Rock Hall sits further south than the stadium, which is much taller.  

 

Just for reference, here are a couple shots i took on approach to BKL a couple winters back.  You can see 24L/6R might have issues with building out on the port land, but 24R/6L is offshore.   

Wouldn't something like this look better?

5 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

Wouldn't something like this look better?

Let's see there are public housing projects, single family townhomes and baseball fields.   Also keep in mind, the area you are showing is about 100 acres.  Burke is 450.   

 

I somehow think most people on Urban Ohio are dreaming in more grandiose SIM-City fashion!

 

 

2 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

Let's see there are public housing projects, single family townhomes and baseball fields.   Also keep in mind, the area you are showing is about 100 acres.  Burke is 450.   

 

I somehow think most people on Urban Ohio are dreaming in more grandiose SIM-City fashion!

 

 

A lot of planners and urbanists fall victim to Sim City Syndrome, forgetting the people who live and work in a city are going to have preferences.   Ignore that at your peril.

 

The last outburst of that we had here was when the Opportunity Corridor was proposed.

I was reading an op ed piece in Crain's by the guy who used to own Million Air based at Burke. Besides his personal bias for keeping it an airport he did bring up something most of us know about but in our desire to develop the lakefront, we downplay. That being the fact that the landfill Burke is built on is nothing more than toxic crap. The only way to build something tall is an expensive removal of most of the soil and you still have to dig deep to hit bedrock. At what expense? We're not New York, Chicago etc. with deep pockets. And to repeat some of the above, we still have plenty of other under-developed land in and around downtown waiting for shovels.

 

I still want to see Burke closed but my preference is to turn it into a woodsy park. Plant trees with species that grow 100 feet or more. Like Stanley Park in Vancouver. I think we could plant on the land without too much remediation or expense. 

I agree with cadmen on how to use Burke.  Grant Park and LIncoln Park in Chicago are examples of parks made from landfill, made of garbage and remains of the great Chicago Fire.  Cover it with trees and natural planting, put some walking and riding paths in, maybe a concert bandshell near the waters edge, let the Metropark run it, and call it Forest City Park.

12 minutes ago, cadmen said:

 That being the fact that the landfill Burke is built on is nothing more than toxic crap.

I can confirm from talking to employees there that anytime a hole is dug in the field, they say it oozes out smelly brown and black sludge that is clearly not healthy.  

3 minutes ago, jbdad2 said:

I agree with cadmen on how to use Burke.  Grant Park and LIncoln Park in Chicago are examples of parks made from landfill, made of garbage and remains of the great Chicago Fire.  Cover it with trees and natural planting, put some walking and riding paths in, maybe a concert bandshell near the waters edge, let the Metropark run it, and call it Forest City Park.

I might agree if we didn't already have plenty of lakefront parks.   Just to the east the Gordon parks are underutilized.  The ones to the south of the shoreway are growing over.  And we DEFINITELY don't want the City of Cleveland in charge of anything.  They can't maintain the properties they already have.  

I might agree if we didn't already have plenty of lakefront parks.   Just to the east the Gordon parks are underutilized.  The ones to the south of the shoreway are growing over.  And we DEFINITELY don't want the City of Cleveland in charge of anything.  They can't maintain the properties they already have.  

We can’t have too many parks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with cadmen on how to use Burke.  Grant Park and LIncoln Park in Chicago are examples of parks made from landfill, made of garbage and remains of the great Chicago Fire.  Cover it with trees and natural planting, put some walking and riding paths in, maybe a concert bandshell near the waters edge, let the Metropark run it, and call it Forest City Park.

The reason I don’t agree with more parks is because when don’t even know how to properly utilize the current ones we have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

8 minutes ago, MyPhoneDead said:

The reason I don’t agree with more parks is because when don’t even know how to properly utilize the current ones we have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You missed the part where he said the Metroparks would run it. No one on here should be of the opinion that the Metroparks does not know how to properly utilize parkland. The city of Cleveland? Ya, I'd agree with you. 

4 minutes ago, KFM44107 said:

You missed the part where he said the Metroparks would run it. No one on here should be of the opinion that the Metroparks does not know how to properly utilize parkland. The city of Cleveland? Ya, I'd agree with you. 

I will advocate til death that the city of Cleveland should sub out its parks/rec/forestry departments and budget to the Metroparks. Everyone wins.

HOT TOPIC ALERT!

 

Before this topic gets locked for rogue Burke posts, i do know we have a separate discussion with the utilization of that space and the problems it's causing for the general public.
This topic is used for lakefront development not to include Burke Lakefront. Sorry but not sorry. :)

 

 FIELD OPERATIONS will be either the lead design firm or a part of the new Lakefront Plan. Area extends from from e 18 to w 6th.

9 hours ago, freethink said:

 FIELD OPERATIONS will be either the lead design firm or a part of the new Lakefront Plan. Area extends from from e 18 to w 6th.

The High Line, but make it Cleveland. 👏

 

(Public Square - ish.)

Looking at their work I’d say it’s a perfect fit

14 hours ago, marty15 said:

I will advocate til death that the city of Cleveland should sub out its parks/rec/forestry departments and budget to the Metroparks. Everyone wins.

 

 It's made a major difference at Edgewater and Euclid Beach.

 
 It's made a major difference at Edgewater and Euclid Beach.

MAAAAAJOR


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

On 11/15/2022 at 3:55 PM, E Rocc said:

 

Well the river was there.

Vermilion has a river.

How has this not gotten posted here yet?

 

Cleveland picks Field Operations (the team behind Public Square)-led team to tackle downtown lakefront master plan

 

https://www.crainscleveland.com/real-estate/cleveland-taps-james-corner-field-operations-craft-downtown-lakefront-master-plan

 

My hope is that this ends the eternal cycle of studies, my fear is that it is only adding one more to the pile. I'm optimistic though!

Edited November 20, 20222 yr by Ethan

7 minutes ago, Ethan said:

How has this not gotten posted here yet?

 

Cleveland picks Field Operations (the team behind Public Square)-led team to tackle downtown lakefront master plan

 

https://www.crainscleveland.com/real-estate/cleveland-taps-james-corner-field-operations-craft-downtown-lakefront-master-plan

 

My hope is that this ends the eternal cycle of studies, my fear is that it is only adding one more to the pile. I'm optimistic though!

Great there will be concrete jersey barriers lining the lakeshore and a distinct lack of park benches.  😜

Decades and decades of plans, all of which must be collecting mountains of dust by now.

 

Why is this any different? It's so hard not being cynical.

 

 

Edited November 20, 20222 yr by TBideon

On 11/18/2022 at 7:05 PM, marty15 said:

I will advocate til death that the city of Cleveland should sub out its parks/rec/forestry departments and budget to the Metroparks. Everyone wins.

 

On 11/19/2022 at 9:35 AM, E Rocc said:

It's made a major difference at Edgewater and Euclid Beach.

 

On 11/19/2022 at 9:56 AM, MyPhoneDead said:

MAAAAAJOR
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not that the city would have done better, but I’ll again remind everyone that Edgewater was run by the state, not the city, prior to being turned over to Metroparks. And also, our sewer district project has dramatically reduced sewer overflows to Edgewater, which is arguably as important as Metroparks stewardship in improving the Edgewater experience. 

public square design turned out to be not so great

17 hours ago, TBideon said:

Decades and decades of plans, all of which must be collecting mountains of dust by now.

 

Why is this any different? It's so hard not being cynical.

 

 

Yeah I find that I give thought to my own mortality when considering the amounts of lakefront plans we’ve seen over the decades.

I'm happy to hear that Field Operations is involved in the master plan development.   However, wouldn't it be best to hear first what the plans are with The Shoreway?  I also wonder where  The RRHOF expansion plans stand. I believe Field Operations were part of the landscape architect chosen in the design process

It would also be nice to know what the plans are for First Energy Stadium and Burke Airport.

My magic ball says:

 

First Energy Stadium: no plans until the Browns leave in 10ish years after the city/county refuses to be blackmailed by Jimmy and Dee for a fully subsidized "competitive" stadium. These no plans are followed by more no plans unless you count the stadium rotting away with city leaders being "eager at the opportunity" for development. 

 

Burke: no plans until the end of time. Perhaps even beyond that. 

End of time huh? Is that before or after the Browns win the Super Bowl?

On 11/25/2022 at 11:55 AM, TBideon said:

My magic ball says:

 

First Energy Stadium: no plans until the Browns leave in 10ish years after the city/county refuses to be blackmailed by Jimmy and Dee for a fully subsidized "competitive" stadium. These no plans are followed by more no plans unless you count the stadium rotting away with city leaders being "eager at the opportunity" for development. 

 

Burke: no plans until the end of time. Perhaps even beyond that. 

Lmao there is no chance in hell the city/county would refuse a deal to keep the Browns in Cleveland. And even if they did, the browns would just move to the edge of Medina or Lorain or whatever. They aren't leaving again. The Guardians once the Dolans are gone certainly will. Regardless, that current stadium will either rot for decades or there will be yet another giant surface lot sitting in its place on the lakefront, like the one currently north of the stadium. 

29 minutes ago, AsDustinFoxWouldSay said:

Lmao there is no chance in hell the city/county would refuse a deal to keep the Browns in Cleveland. And even if they did, the browns would just move to the edge of Medina or Lorain or whatever. They aren't leaving again. The Guardians once the Dolans are gone certainly will. Regardless, that current stadium will either rot for decades or there will be yet another giant surface lot sitting in its place on the lakefront, like the one currently north of the stadium. 

The Guardians have a 25 year lease. But whatever this rant is 🙄

 

Making waves on Cleveland’s lakefront
By Ken Prendergast / December 5, 2022

 

Depositing of fill dirt, removal of a pedestrian bridge and plans for a combined restaurant, event center and boat launch are all in the works along Cleveland’s lakefront. And these activities are early, yet tangible indications of potential next steps for even larger changes along where the city meets its greatest natural asset.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2022/12/05/making-waves-on-clevelands-lakefront/

really want them to move 90 back. gordon park is a dead zone inbetween the railway and the highway

Heard from the Metroparks on the multi-use facility at the East 55th Marina. They were not happy that I had that info or plans. So they asked me to remove it and walk it back any info about it. I didn't remove it, but I did tone down how far along the planning for it is.

For those of us that have been around for awhile, it’s so difficult getting enthused about lakefront plans.  
 

So many unfulfilled plans over the years, as @KJPmentioned - (thanks Ken for yet another interesting read.) 
 

I just hope (and I’ve got to believe) that the powers that be in Cleveland realize how absolutely critical to the city’s future the lakefront experience is for Northeast Ohio residents. 
 

i understand that appropriate studies and processes must be followed for funding and environmental purposes.  I just hope that there is now a sense of urgency - (hope that doesn’t sound overly dramatic.)  We’ve really got to move beyond plans and start building before another whole generation of Clevelanders is gone.  And we’ve got to think about our city’s  ability to not just survive but prosper in the 30’s, 40’s and the  second half of the 21st century.  
 

 

On 11/19/2022 at 9:56 AM, MyPhoneDead said:

MAAAAAJOR


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is slowly happening in Toledo too. Toledo Metroparks has been investing heavily in the city the last five years, and there are discussions about a handover of the couple of major Toledo parks. They need major investment. 

i love how the proposed e55 marina facility design mirrors look of the historic coast guard station. 

17 hours ago, Whipjacka said:

really want them to move 90 back. gordon park is a dead zone inbetween the railway and the highway

 

Gordon Park between the railway and the highway is pretty much the baseball fields and disused tennis courts ("bike polo courts").  There's nothing there for any uses beyond that and as mentioned above, as a City of Cleveland park, it's a poor experience overall.

 

Moving 90 back is a massive long shot but regardless of its alignment or the plan KPJ wrote about, elimination of the E. 72 ramps/interchange should be part of the discussion.  72nd and MLK are far too close together for safe merging eastbound from E72nd and westbound from MLK.  Truck traffic from the industrial uses on 72nd would be the major issue, I suppose, and not wanting to divert that to N Marginal or all the way around St. Clair to 55th?  If the power plant land is to be developed, a bike/ped bridge over 72nd to Gordon would be attractive.

6 minutes ago, mrnyc said:

i love how the proposed e55 marina facility design mirrors look of the historic coast guard station. 

I also noticed that. Speaking of unfulfilled plans, what is happening with the old Coast Guard station?