Jump to content

Featured Replies

Thanks, @surfohio. Too bad that never happened. I think some of those trolleys were sold off but a believe the rest of them are at a museum near Lodi now.

  • Replies 6.8k
  • Views 620.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • BoomerangCleRes
    BoomerangCleRes

    https://www.cleveland.com/news/2024/09/cleveland-metroparks-partners-announce-world-class-community-sailing-center-to-open-in-2026.html?outputType=amp  

  • NorthShore64
    NorthShore64

    For a MUCH more clear version of the plan, here is the recording of the special planning commission meeting from Monday (5-17-21). This wasn't published online / made available until late tonight (~10

  • Amtrak seeks $300m for Great Lakes-area stations By Ken Prendergast / April 26, 2024   Cleveland and other Northern Ohio cities would gain new, larger train stations from a program propose

Posted Images

3 hours ago, surfohio said:

For the sake of history and the growing pile of long lost lakefront ideas:

 

Cleveland — Historic Trolleys a Goal to Revitalize Downtown

Sun Newspapers, January 12 2006

By KEN PRENDERGAST
Staff Writer

Jan. 12, 2006

Downtown Cleveland's lakefront soon could feature more than just new housing, offices and shops. It might gain an historic and fun way to get around.

 

Later this year, a collection of antique electric trolleys of the former Trolleyville USA, now called Lakeshore Electric Railway, will be moving downtown. RTA has given Lake Shore Electric a green signal to build a car barn at the end of the Waterfront Line near East 26th Street. The 50-car collection has called Olmsted Township home for more than four decades.

The $40 million collection sits behind the old Trolleyville USA lot on Columbia Road. All the trolleys must be moved by July, in accordance with a sales agreement Gary Brookins made when he sold the Town & Country Plaza and Columbia Mobile Home Park in 2001.

 

Once the new car barn is finished, the next stop for Lakeshore Electric is to build a lakefront trolley museum, to display the impact trolleys made on urban development in the first half of the 20th century. And, it will explain Cleveland's importance to the streetcar era, as many cars used nationwide were built here, said Steve Frye, a consultant to the museum.

 

 

https://heritagetrolley.org/planCleveland01.htm

 

Wow. What a great article. 😁

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck

9 hours ago, KJP said:

While I would have loved to see the stadium be built on the Davenport Bluff on the northeast side of downtown, it sure sounds to me like this thing is going to Brook Park. My article yesterday sorts out the reasons why. And this is not on the Haslams -- if what they say is true that they are not considering a dome anywhere in Cleveland. That sounds like it's on the city because a roof means more costs to share with a private partner. A dome means more events, more spin-off development and more parking devoted to the stadium. And the Haslams want to control the revenue from all of it. That's not happening on the lakefront north of the tracks where no one can own land except the state or a state-chartered agency. The state even contends the city cannot own reclaimed land, let alone sell anything above it (air rights, condos, etc). Look at the city's lakefront plans versus what the Browns put out a couple years ago. One is revenue-rich. The other is public-space-rich. Where is all of the thousands of parking spaces? They're all gone except for what looks like a 1,000-space garage/multimodal station.

 

Bringing this over from the Browns Stadium discussion since my question is more general to lakefront development. Apologies in advance if we've already covered this, but I have some questions about the state restricting ownership of the reclaimed land. 

 

Did the Haslam's know about these restrictions when they released their lakefront plans? I know they only released conceptual designs, but it seems like something that would come up during the due diligence phase of planning a development. Even a conceptual one. Seems like there's three likely options; (1) they didn't know and just bore ahead, (2) they knew but Jimmy assumed he would be able to cajole state officials to let him build, or (3) he released the plan to get excitement around stadium development as a way to put pressure on the city to pony up more cash for the reno. I don't think 2 and 3 are mutually exclusive...

 

More generally for the lakefront, what's the reasoning for the state's ownership of the land over the city and has Cleveland ever challenged this? If not it would seem worth pressing on to test the strength of the state's claim. Otherwise it really hamstrings any development of the lakefront... do any of the city's have this kind of restriction on their most valuable land...? 

 

Last question; would this have any implications for the CHEERs project? Or because Metroparks is undertaking that project it wont be subject to the same considerations? 

I encourage all to read this October 2014 article in the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Journal by two local attorneys.

 

The Public Trust Doctrine 
and Submerged Lake Erie 
Lands in Ohio

By Joseph M. Saponaro & Keith H. Rake

 

Lake Erie is arguably Ohio’s greatest 
natural resource and is vitally 
important to Ohio’s economy. Lake 
Erie provides water for drinking, 
commercial shipping, fishing, transportation 
and recreational activities. In addition, Lake 
Erie is the boundary line for more than 8,000 
lakefront property owners in Ohio. 


Rights in and to the waters of Lake Erie 
and the underlying lake bed are restricted 
by the common law principle known as the 
“Public Trust Doctrine.” Essentially, the Public 
Trust Doctrine reserves rights in submerged 
lands for public use and enjoyment such as 
navigation, commerce, fishing and recreation, 
and use by littoral owners (the rights of owners 
of land abutting the Great Lakes are called 
“littoral rights” and the owners enjoying those 
littoral rights are “littoral owners”). 

 

Pursuant to the Submerged Land Act in 
1953, 43 U.S.C.A. Ch. 29, title to submerged 
lands is owned by the federal government, 
which subsequently transfers the right to lease 
the submerged lands to the states that border 
the body of water. In Ohio, these rights are 
protected, determined, and enforced under 
Chapter 15 of the Ohio Revised Code, and in 
accordance with the tenets of the Public Trust 
Doctrine. Under the Public Trust Doctrine, the 
littoral owners have rights to reasonable use of 
the waters of Lake Erie in front of or flowing 
past their lands for any purpose incidental to 
the use and enjoyment of the waterfront land

Lake Erie is arguably Ohio’s greatest 
natural resource and is vitally 
important to Ohio’s economy. Lake 
Erie provides water for drinking, 
commercial shipping, fishing, transportation 
and recreational activities. In addition, Lake 
Erie is the boundary line for more than 8,000 
lakefront property owners in Ohio. 
Rights in and to the waters of Lake Erie 
and the underlying lake bed are restricted 
by the common law principle known as the 
“Public Trust Doctrine.” Essentially, the Public 
Trust Doctrine reserves rights in submerged 
lands for public use and enjoyment such as 
navigation, commerce, fishing and recreation, 
and use by littoral owners (the rights of owners 
of land abutting the Great Lakes are called 
“littoral rights” and the owners enjoying those 
littoral rights are “littoral owners”). 

 

I can't copy the PDF link on my phone so if you'd like to read more, please Google the article. 

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck

3 hours ago, KJP said:

I encourage all to read this October 2014 article in the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Journal by two local attorneys.

 

The Public Trust Doctrine 
and Submerged Lake Erie 
Lands in Ohio

By Joseph M. Saponaro & Keith H. Rake

* * *

I can't copy the PDF link on my phone so if you'd like to read more, please Google the article. 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.tuckerellis.com/userfiles/file/Raker_Public%20Trust%20Doctrine_Cleveland%20Bar%20Journal_October%202014.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjdrJTBkJeFAxVtkIkEHVedCXoQFnoECBoQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3VojtPfjgc152GX9GJhBBJ

Edited by Foraker

4 minutes ago, 3 Dog Pat said:

Just a suggestion, maybe we can copy Milwaukee's lakefront and build a festival grounds, next to North Coast Harbor

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Maier_Festival_Park

 

https://www.summerfest.com/grounds-map/

 

image.png.6bd786a34881735c7b35ffeec922d19c.png

 

And Toronto Exhibition Place plus its convention center. Plus Chicago's McCormick Place.

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck

A cool thing about their lakefront is the more natural circuitous shoreline unlike our straight/right angle one. A little vision doesn't hurt when designing something.

the summer fest site in Milwaukee and McCormick Place in Chicago are both on the edge of downtown, not front-and-center like Brown's stadium. These sites would be more analogous to the location of the Muni Lot. Also, the McCormick Center is a major impedance to lakefront access there. Don't like either of these ideas for the Browns Stadium site.

20 hours ago, Rustbelter said:

 Also, the McCormick Center is a major impedance to lakefront access there. Don't like either of these ideas for the Browns Stadium site.

 

Agreed.  

  • 3 weeks later...
7 minutes ago, MyPhoneDead said:

Cleveland City Council holds off on mayor’s ask for more lakefront planning money amid Browns relocation threat

https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2024/04/cleveland-city-council-holds-off-on-mayors-ask-for-more-lakefront-planning-money-amid-browns-relocation-threat.html

 

From Nick Castele's reporting in Signal, this is a very misleading headline. Field Operations went $400K over their $500K budget and Bibb's administration had to return to Council to approve the additional funding, importantly after the costs were incurred by the consultants. So Council is upset about the cost overruns and that they weren't consulted sooner about the rising costs. Based on Nick's reporting the Browns potential move had nothing to do with Council pumping the breaks on approving the additional funding. 

 

https://signalcleveland.org/consulting-costs-rising-for-mayor-justin-bibbs-cleveland-lakefront-plans/

Not to be pedantic, but they went $260k over and are asking for an additional $140k to complete the work. 

I think it’s a fair pivot given the recent uncertainty of the stadium situation. 

 

Either way, Blaine Griffin has seemed pretty willing to obstruct any development if it gives him a chance to call it a loss for Bibb. 

On a slightly unrelated lakefront note, I think we should have seen at least one of the Burke studies by now. I’m surprised no reporter has done a public records request for it at this point (although I’m not sure exactly how that works or how long it takes)

 

 

48 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

 

From Nick Castele's reporting in Signal, this is a very misleading headline. Field Operations went $400K over their $500K budget and Bibb's administration had to return to Council to approve the additional funding, importantly after the costs were incurred by the consultants. So Council is upset about the cost overruns and that they weren't consulted sooner about the rising costs. Based on Nick's reporting the Browns potential move had nothing to do with Council pumping the breaks on approving the additional funding. 

 

https://signalcleveland.org/consulting-costs-rising-for-mayor-justin-bibbs-cleveland-lakefront-plans/

I thought the same thing (headline was misleading) from the little of the council meeting I saw.  It had more to do with process and transparency and going over the original budget.

49 minutes ago, Henke said:

Either way, Blaine Griffin has seemed pretty willing to obstruct any development if it gives him a chance to call it a loss for Bibb. 

 

The Bibb administration has actually had pretty smooth sailing through council with the transformational projects they've proposed most recently the Shore to Core to Shore TIF legislation.

That’s fair. I may have been lingering on the WSM funding debacle (which was resolved pretty amicably)

 

 

^ So this is basically all about the Browns stadium after all. 

That site sure would look much nicer without that hulking stadium.

It's a shame so much money has been poured into developing this lakefront plan that all began because The Haslam's originally invested a million dollars to design a plan to surround the stadium.  I say we hold off spending anymore city money until the stadium location is resolved. 

 

Annoying as it all is, the implication of that video is that the city is starting to consider plans for the lakefront without a stadium. That's great news! The worst situation would be for the city to get blindsided by the Browns leaving. It sounds like they may be being proactive and making contingency plans for whatever the Browns decide. That's smart and worth the money. 

How about a new Aquarium and a new planetarium!  Or some other Museum type to bring more people down there.

Yes!  There will need to be some attractions to get people to visit year-round, not just during the summer.

Not much new other than City Council approving the increased budget for Field Operations to finish their deign planning. 

 

Cleveland nearly doubles budget for the city's lakefront design plan

 

Ideastream Public Media | By Abbey Marshall

Published April 23, 2024

 

Quote

A week after Mayor Justin Bibb’s administration came before Cleveland City Council asking for more money for the city’s lakefront master plan designs, the body agreed to nearly double the budget — but many members of council were not happy.

 

Field Operations LLC, the architecture firm the city selected to design Downtown Cleveland’s waterfront plan, already surpassed the half-million budget by $260,000, finance director Ahmed Abonamah told members of council last week. Much of that additional work went into designing a "structurally sound" and visually appealing land bridge to connect Downtown to Lake Erie, he said.

 

https://www.ideastream.org/government-politics/2024-04-23/cleveland-nearly-doubles-budget-for-the-citys-lakefront-design-plan

Assuming the Browns go to Brookpark, Wonder if any of the key players from the city are thinking in terms of the lakefront becoming an actual neighborhood - with plenty of residential.  
 

Or if they see it mainly  as an area for parks  and recreation. 
 

 

Capitol-Limited-Cleveland-071723-KJP-5Rs

 

Amtrak seeks $300m for Great Lakes-area stations
By Ken Prendergast / April 26, 2024

 

Cleveland and other Northern Ohio cities would gain new, larger train stations from a program proposed by passenger railroad Amtrak to improve its intercity services here. The program, a five-year, $300 million Great Lakes Stations Improvement initiative, represents the first time in Amtrak’s 53-year history that it has pursued such an aggressive development effort for this region and specifically for the Cleveland-Chicago route.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2024/04/26/amtrak-seeks-300m-for-great-lakes-area-stations/

 

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck

Great article KJP. This is a little disappointing though. 

 

Quote

All Aboard Ohio and the Lakeshore Rail Alliance have asked, so far unsuccessfully, the city of Cleveland for an alternatives analysis to compare the costs of accommodating Amtrak’s proposed Amtrak Connects Us services at a lakefront station location amid the busy freight train traffic versus a restored station shared with Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad at Tower City Center that would avoid interfering with freights.

 

2 minutes ago, Mendo said:

Great article KJP. This is a little disappointing though. 

 

 

It is disappointing, but not unexpected. It seems like this was never even a serious consideration. It would be fantastic if this could happen. It is probably too much of a logistical challenge and financially unfeasible.

Wasn’t there a clause put in place when Amtrak was first created that gave it priority over freight trains? The issue was that no one enforces it I believe 

1 hour ago, MyPhoneDead said:

Wasn’t there a clause put in place when Amtrak was first created that gave it priority over freight trains? The issue was that no one enforces it I believe 

 

Correct 

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck

On 4/27/2024 at 1:31 PM, MyPhoneDead said:

Wasn’t there a clause put in place when Amtrak was first created that gave it priority over freight trains? The issue was that no one enforces it I believe 

I have never heard that and can't imagine how Amtrak would have priority over the railroad that paid for and built the tracks. Is that a right that Amtrak pays for?

1 hour ago, TMart said:

I have never heard that and can't imagine how Amtrak would have priority over the railroad that paid for and built the tracks. Is that a right that Amtrak pays for?


No, they don't pay for it, it's the law. It was a political compromise at the time. The rail companies did not want to run any passenger services at all, so in exchange for the Feds buying out those services, they had to acquis to Federal law that states passenger services get priority. Given the lack of enforcement, I think it's fair to say that the (now freight) rail companies got the better end of the deal.

57 minutes ago, TMart said:

I have never heard that and can't imagine how Amtrak would have priority over the railroad that paid for and built the tracks. Is that a right that Amtrak pays for?

 

Because historically passenger trains had priority over freight traffic because passengers needs are more time-sensitive. And whatever the speed limit is for a freight train on a given line, the speed limit for a passenger trains is always 10-30 mph faster because they can speed up/stop more quickly.

 

By the 1960s, railroads were doing everything possible to sabotage passenger use -- run trains with only 1-3 cars and pack everyone into them or leave behind people who couldn't fit, mis-schedule connecting trains, remove beverage/food services from the trains, leave some trains off the public timetables so people would think those trains were gone, assign costs to passenger trains that were primarily freight oriented like a switching crew that spent all day switching freight cars at local yard but for 20 minutes it pulled a passenger train back from the station to the yard for servicing between runs but guess where 100 percent of the cost was assigned, maintenance on trains and tracks and stations were deferred, and of course passenger trains were put in sidings to wait for freight trains or slow freight trains were run ahead of them.

 

By the time Amtrak came around, not only were most private railroads so eager to get rid of them, they were willing to pay tens of millions in start-up fees to the federal government, they gave Amtrak eminent domain-like powers to use any railroad they wanted as long as the railroads were compensated for them, they agreed to let Amtrak trains run on their tracks at what's called "incremental cost" rather than a negotiated market rate, and they agreed to let Amtrak trains have operational priority over freight trains.

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck

4 hours ago, KJP said:

Because historically passenger trains had priority over freight traffic because passengers needs are more time-sensitive. And whatever the speed limit is for a freight train on a given line, the speed limit for a passenger trains is always 10-30 mph faster because they can speed up/stop more quickly.

@KJP Thank you for educating the next generation to continue the fight for passenger priority!

Minor update for CHEERS. I hadn't seen phase 1 specified yet, so I'm assuming others haven't yet. It looks like you might be able to visit a portion of the park north of the Marina by 2031/2032.

 

Screenshot_20240503-125751-900.thumb.png.50bb620ba4d6f740a76184921796d965.png

Shore to the core to the shore for some more....

 

 

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck

On 2/9/2023 at 9:06 PM, Ethan said:

With the lakefront thread locked, this is probably the best place for this. 

 

https://www.crainscleveland.com/real-estate/cleveland-mobile-home-park-closure-will-make-way-lakefront-park-expansion

 

"The Euclid Beach Mobile Home Community on Cleveland's East Side is far too costly to maintain and should be closed to make way for a unified Euclid Creek Reservation — a lakefront green space that will rival Edgewater Park in size.

 

That's the conclusion of the Western Reserve Land Conservancy, which purchased the 28.5-acre mobile home park in December 2021 to prevent a private developer from swooping in. Representatives from the land conservancy and OHM Advisors, a planning firm, presented their findings at a public meeting late Thursday, Feb. 9, at the Collinwood Recreation Center.

 

The decision provides clarity to park residents, who have been living in limbo for more than a year. It also enables neighboring landowners, including the Cleveland Metroparks and the Cleveland Public Library, to start planning for the future of their properties."

 

I'm glad to see this continue to move forward. When complete this will be a valuable asset. 

Cleveland Metroparks is officially acquiring the Euclid Beach mobile home community property from Western Reserve Land Conservancy. The sale is for less than it's worth, and WRLC is providing some of the money themselves, so the property is effectively being transferred (unsurprising), with the added benefit of sending some grant money to WRLC.

 

Screenshot_20240514-131329-447_1.png.c71fa09128f72c290f5cb82906584336.png

  • 2 weeks later...

Worth noting here. We'll see what, if anything this translates into economic development-wise...

 

 

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck

North-Coast-Harbor-090322-kjp-s.jpg

 

North Coast Harbor getting $5M makeover
By Ken Prendergast / May 29, 2024

 

North Coast Harbor is set for an upgrade, with a $4.99 million investment that is a result of Mayor Justin Bibb’s Reimagining Downtown Cleveland Plan. This comprehensive project aims to create a more safe, equitable and enjoyable waterfront experience for all visitors.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2024/05/29/north-coast-harbor-getting-5m-makeover/

 

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck

^ Sounds great! I hope they find a way to stop the a-hole motorbikers congregating there most nights. 

My hovercraft is full of eels

On 4/29/2024 at 10:03 AM, KJP said:

 

Because historically passenger trains had priority over freight traffic because passengers needs are more time-sensitive. And whatever the speed limit is for a freight train on a given line, the speed limit for a passenger trains is always 10-30 mph faster because they can speed up/stop more quickly.

 

By the 1960s, railroads were doing everything possible to sabotage passenger use -- run trains with only 1-3 cars and pack everyone into them or leave behind people who couldn't fit, mis-schedule connecting trains, remove beverage/food services from the trains, leave some trains off the public timetables so people would think those trains were gone, assign costs to passenger trains that were primarily freight oriented like a switching crew that spent all day switching freight cars at local yard but for 20 minutes it pulled a passenger train back from the station to the yard for servicing between runs but guess where 100 percent of the cost was assigned, maintenance on trains and tracks and stations were deferred, and of course passenger trains were put in sidings to wait for freight trains or slow freight trains were run ahead of them.

 

By the time Amtrak came around, not only were most private railroads so eager to get rid of them, they were willing to pay tens of millions in start-up fees to the federal government, they gave Amtrak eminent domain-like powers to use any railroad they wanted as long as the railroads were compensated for them, they agreed to let Amtrak trains run on their tracks at what's called "incremental cost" rather than a negotiated market rate, and they agreed to let Amtrak trains have operational priority over freight trains.

 

The thing is, rail deliveries have traditionally been "we'll get there when we get there" and that's not competitive since JIT became predominant.

On 5/14/2024 at 1:22 PM, Ethan said:

Cleveland Metroparks is officially acquiring the Euclid Beach mobile home community property from Western Reserve Land Conservancy. The sale is for less than it's worth, and WRLC is providing some of the money themselves, so the property is effectively being transferred (unsurprising), with the added benefit of sending some grant money to WRLC.

 

Screenshot_20240514-131329-447_1.png.c71fa09128f72c290f5cb82906584336.png

 

There's twice as many homes in that park as got removed for the Opportunity Corridor, but we're not hearing the sort of lamentations from the trendy that we heard over the former.

1 hour ago, E Rocc said:

 

The thing is, rail deliveries have traditionally been "we'll get there when we get there" and that's not competitive since JIT became predominant.

 

Except for intermodal

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck

5 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

There's twice as many homes in that park as got removed for the Opportunity Corridor, but we're not hearing the sort of lamentations from the trendy that we heard over the former.

I don’t think any trendy were lamenting OC home removals. The homes there were in rough shape and it was not a trendy neighborhood or in danger of becoming a trendy neighborhood. 

20 hours ago, KJP said:

North-Coast-Harbor-090322-kjp-s.jpg

 

North Coast Harbor getting $5M makeover
By Ken Prendergast / May 29, 2024

 

North Coast Harbor is set for an upgrade, with a $4.99 million investment that is a result of Mayor Justin Bibb’s Reimagining Downtown Cleveland Plan. This comprehensive project aims to create a more safe, equitable and enjoyable waterfront experience for all visitors.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2024/05/29/north-coast-harbor-getting-5m-makeover/

 

 

I know this is the Lakefront Dev thread, but have there been any rumblings re:improving E. 9th connector to downtown? Talk about something that feels barren and unsafe. Not the best gateway for tourists walking back into town from down there.

 

I'd imagine this $5M project is a piece in the landbridge puzzle.

 

19 hours ago, roman totale XVII said:

^ Sounds great! I hope they find a way to stop the a-hole motorbikers congregating there most nights. 

 

When I've been down there and this has been going on I feel like its one dumb argument away from innocent people having to duck and cover. Ah the sounds of summer, bikes and cars blasting their stereos and revving their engines. Need to figure out a way to reclaim these spaces from these idiots.

15 minutes ago, GISguy said:

 

I know this is the Lakefront Dev thread, but have there been any rumblings re:improving E. 9th connector to downtown? Talk about something that feels barren and unsafe. Not the best gateway for tourists walking back into town from down there.

E9th is a road, not a street, and probably will always feel unfriendly to pedestrians. I totally agree that it would be really nice to have a better pedestrian experience on that corridor from the ballpark to the Rock Hall.  Maybe take out a lane (or even half a lane) to widen the sidewalks and plant trees, and build a separate pedestrian bridge as an alternative to the E9th bridge to get across Rt. 2 to the Rock Hall.

The Shoreway to Boulevard transformation should cover some drastic improvements to E9, right? 

2 hours ago, surfohio said:

The Shoreway to Boulevard transformation should cover some drastic improvements to E9, right? 

Yes, and that is definitely on my wish list -- but we will still have a bridge over the railroad tracks.

I'd actually rather they prioritize redoing e9 and w3 pedestrian experience before doing the 'landbridge'

11 minutes ago, Whipjacka said:

I'd actually rather they prioritize redoing e9 and w3 pedestrian experience before doing the 'landbridge'

 

Speaking of w3, I've yet to see any rendering where that street looks like anything but an elevated car-centric access road. 

Create an account or sign in to comment

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.