14 minutes ago, MyPhoneDead said:

Idk if people just have PTSD from past projects fizzling out or never even been close to fruition but I'm surprised at the reaction this news has been received on here. 

 

Indeed. People my age and older should be dancing in the streets because they've just witnessed Cleveland do something that other progressive cities have done before and we wished we were them for much of our lives. Maybe we don't know how to handle it. It's like the Cavs winning the championship and crying out of self-pity because we were denied similar joys for the prior 52 years. But because of the prior 52 years, you should be enjoying that championship all that much more. The 52 years is over. And here, the prior decades of not being able to seal a deal on the lakefront are over, too. Dance, fools!

2 minutes ago, daybreaker said:

I just moved to Cleveland, so I've only traveled this part of the shoreway a few times, so just to get a clarification on the proposal...

 

To use an example, driving from Ohio City to Beachland Ballroom... When I went Monday night, the shoreway/I-90 was entirely uninterrupted from W45th st to the E152nd St exit.

 

Now there would be a light and intersection at W 3rd St? So coming from Ohio City, I'd stop, take a left on W 3rd, then take a right to continue on Hwy 2 / the shoreway out to I-90?

 

Every time I've driven on the shoreway there's been almost no cars, so I cant imagine this will cause too much additional traffic or drive time going between the west and east sides... but like I said, I'm super new here, so I dont actually know that for sure

 

Yes, that's correct. Now, during rush hours, there may actually be something called a traffic slow-down downtown but in a much more orderly manner via two intersections. The alternative was a high-speed dodge-em amid the ramps of West 3rd-East 9th after you just prayed that nobody would be there to try a short-merge into your car before they impaled themselves into a jersey barrier at 50 mph.

10 minutes ago, daybreaker said:

Now there would be a light and intersection at W 3rd St? So coming from Ohio City, I'd stop, take a left on W 3rd, then take a right to continue on Hwy 2 / the shoreway out to I-90?

 

My reading of the diagrams is that this first phase will add three lights. One at the new intersection created with the shoreway boulevard and Lakeside, and then two with W3rd, one at each end. A later phase will add an intersection at E9, and possibly another near Burke/Muni lot to facilitate development. 

4 minutes ago, Ethan said:

My reading of the diagrams is that this first phase will add three lights. One at the new intersection created with the shoreway boulevard and Lakeside, and then two with W3rd, one at each end. A later phase will add an intersection at E9, and possibly another near Burke/Muni lot to facilitate development. 

 

Plus the East 18th extension.

Thanks for the confirmation! I've been pleasantly surprised by how chill the shoreway has seemed so far, and Cleveland drivers in general (except for the people blatantly running red lights... but thats the only thing I've seen worse, so far).

 

I've long been a fan of taking down elevated roadways in pedestrian areas (like I-10 separating Treme and the French Quarter in New Orleans, which destroyed tons of thriving black businesses and a beautiful oak-lined street when it was built) so the conversion of this stretch of the Shoreway to a ground level boulevard sounds nice.

35 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

Isn't the point of the Lakefront Development Corp specifically to avoid this?

 

Residents should also make sure any future mayoral candidates commit to keeping up the momentum. And making sure Sherrod Brown wins.

 

I am not negative about this project, it's just really complicated and hard to follow what is happening and when. I think that is the biggest challenge Bibb and others have. Not an uncommon political challenge. 

One thing that I feel makes the Shoreway Bridge redundant in at certain points is its relatively close proximity to the Detroit Superior bridge. For example, the westbound West 28th street exit is pointless due to the Detroit Superior bridge dropping you off at basically the same area. I wouldn't even mind the West 28th Street on ramp being nixed and highway traffic using the DS bridge to get on the highway off of Superior Avenue. I wish the bridge could all be formatted into a boulevard with one of the three lanes in either direction being converted into a protected bike lane that continues onto the West Shoreway Blvd. After this project is completed the Shoreway to the west is (technically) a boulevard and now it will be a boulevard to the east as well so this just makes sense to me. 

16 minutes ago, MyPhoneDead said:

One thing that I feel makes the Shoreway Bridge redundant in at certain points is its relatively close proximity to the Detroit Superior bridge. For example, the westbound West 28th street exit is pointless due to the Detroit Superior bridge dropping you off at basically the same area. I wouldn't even mind the West 28th Street on ramp being nixed and highway traffic using the DS bridge to get on the highway off of Superior Avenue. I wish the bridge could all be formatted into a boulevard with one of the three lanes in either direction being converted into a protected bike lane that continues onto the West Shoreway Blvd. After this project is completed the Shoreway to the west is (technically) a boulevard and now it will be a boulevard to the east as well so this just makes sense to me. 

The Ohio City entrances/exits on the shoreway are nightmares. They should just be removed for the dangers they pose and that traffic goes to either W45/W49 or the Detroit Bridge like you said. Maybe this will slow down the Shoreway Traffic along this stretch too instead of the 50+ minimum speeds near Edgewater. 

 

 

What would be even better is taking a lane of traffic from each side of the Shoreway/Main Ave bridge to connect the Lakefront Bikeway to Downtown. Now Downtown residents would have a completely separate bike path directly to Edgewater, and everyone else with the reverse option to Downtown and the new Lakefront Developments. 

 

 

That bridge has arguably the best view of Downtown, but you can only see it from your car while you're trying to avoid an accident. The city looks so dense and in the summer you see all of the boat traffic. Here's a quick screenshot from my phone of the streetview here. I'd love to be able to walk/bike/scooter here for these views.  

 

Edited October 16, 2024Oct 16 by PlanCleveland

Some of my favorite photos of downtown and the port activity were taken from the #55 bus crossing the Main Avenue Bridge.

2 hours ago, KJP said:

 

Yes, that's correct. Now, during rush hours, there may actually be something called a traffic slow-down downtown but in a much more orderly manner via two intersections. The alternative was a high-speed dodge-em amid the ramps of West 3rd-East 9th after you just prayed that nobody would be there to try a short-merge into your car before they impaled themselves into a jersey barrier at 50 mph.

So true. Dead man's curve is enough for one town but then add the West 3rd-East 9th car pinball cluster to the mix is pure insanity.  Glad that this is finally being addressed or at least an initial phase. A boulevard with slower speed limits will be so nice and safer - especially with a new 18th street intersection/traffic control creating a whole new entryway to downtown and development.  Also removing the elevated branch ramps will visually encourage lakefront access as much as the narrow Y bridge proposed from the Mall toward the Rock Hall and the Stadium of Sadness.  Because we lost so much time during the last Jackson administrations now we have to walk and chew gum at the same time and lauch mutliple projects everywhere we can while we can and while the gods finally seem to be in our corner for once.

2 hours ago, coneflower said:

 

Residents should also make sure any future mayoral candidates commit to keeping up the momentum. And making sure Sherrod Brown wins.

 

I am not negative about this project, it's just really complicated and hard to follow what is happening and when. I think that is the biggest challenge Bibb and others have. Not an uncommon political challenge. 

Justin Bibb today, Justin Bibb tomorrow, Justin Bibb FOREVER! We can't take any chances on someone new lol. I'm JK, I predict he has his sights set on at least the state level so we'd probably get one more term out of him. 

Isn’t the land bridge shown here in Jane Campbell’s plan? From my POV we are getting back to a (right-sized) version of this plan. It makes sense to adjust it after the Jackson administration ignored the lake for nearly two decades.
 

12 hours ago, Henke said:

Isn’t the land bridge shown here in Jane Campbell’s plan? From my POV we are getting back to a (right-sized) version of this plan. It makes sense to adjust it after the Jackson administration ignored the lake for nearly two decades.
 

I actually like this plan. I do appreciate how the city this time around though included waterfront features like a beach etc. but this plan is pretty solid, the ferry terminal is interesting though especially since I would love a ferry to go from Cleveland to Sandusky. Overall I prefer the current vision over this one though. 

16 hours ago, MyPhoneDead said:

One thing that I feel makes the Shoreway Bridge redundant in at certain points is its relatively close proximity to the Detroit Superior bridge.

The details might be a little off, but about 10 years ago they completely shut down the West Shoreway to rebuild it.  It was closed for several months.  All east bound traffic was diverted to Detroit Ave.  People thought it would be chaos, but it turned out to not be a big deal at all in my opinion.  It was fine, and my commute was actually faster!  Granted they did have some cops for traffic control, but it convinced me that the the entire Shoreway is largely redundant.  

 

17 hours ago, MyPhoneDead said:

I wish the bridge could all be formatted into a boulevard with one of the three lanes in either direction being converted into a protected bike lane that continues onto the West Shoreway Blvd. After this project is completed the Shoreway to the west is (technically) a boulevard and now it will be a boulevard to the east as well so this just makes sense to me. 

I would be in favor of eliminating the Shoreway all together since there are already existing City streets that run parallel to its entire length.

 

17 hours ago, KJP said:

Dance, fools!

I'm still dancing though!  This is still a big improvement.

17 hours ago, PlanCleveland said:

That bridge has arguably the best view of Downtown, but you can only see it from your car while you're trying to avoid an accident. The city looks so dense and in the summer you see all of the boat traffic. Here's a quick screenshot from my phone of the streetview here. I'd love to be able to walk/bike/scooter here for these views.  

 

 

I got to bike across this bridge when they closed off traffic for a marathon. The wind kicked up and it started sleeting and snowing and the surface was suddenly so slippery I couldn't really stop...it was absolutely terrifying lol. 

21 minutes ago, surfohio said:

 

I got to bike across this bridge when they closed off traffic for a marathon. The wind kicked up and it started sleeting and snowing and the surface was suddenly so slippery I couldn't really stop...it was absolutely terrifying lol. 

Ya it is VERY exposed to the elements up there. We can work out all of the details later and fixes later, I just want to be able to walk up there and sit with that view and my Roaming Biscuit sandwich on a Saturday morning haha. 

18 hours ago, PlanCleveland said:

The Ohio City entrances/exits on the shoreway are nightmares. They should just be removed for the dangers they pose and that traffic goes to either W45/W49 or the Detroit Bridge like you said. Maybe this will slow down the Shoreway Traffic along this stretch too instead of the 50+ minimum speeds near Edgewater. 

 

 

What would be even better is taking a lane of traffic from each side of the Shoreway/Main Ave bridge to connect the Lakefront Bikeway to Downtown. Now Downtown residents would have a completely separate bike path directly to Edgewater, and everyone else with the reverse option to Downtown and the new Lakefront Developments. 

 

 

That bridge has arguably the best view of Downtown, but you can only see it from your car while you're trying to avoid an accident. The city looks so dense and in the summer you see all of the boat traffic. Here's a quick screenshot from my phone of the streetview here. I'd love to be able to walk/bike/scooter here for these views.  

 

I'm also pretty skeptical that there would be much demand for a bike path here. As Surf mentioned, the exposure to the elements is such that this probably wouldn't be a very pleasant place to be the majority of the year. 

 

I'm also not sure how much of a relative benefit this is for biking relative to going over (or under) Detroit Superior. I love the idea of a continuous Lakefront bikeway, but the bikeway basically restarts at the other end of the Detroit Superior Bridge anyway. 

 

(In my ideal world the rail bridge at the mouth of the river is reconfigured to allow bikes to pass over as well, from there they can get to Wendy Park, and continue over to Edgewater.)

 

And pedestrians definitely won't go up there regularly, no matter how good the view is. Pedestrians are pretty reluctant to walk across Detroit Superior. It feels longer than it is due to how visually boring of a walk it is, and bridge slopes are also surprisingly steep for both bikes and walkers. The same will be true, just more so, for a bike path path along the shoreway. Not a bad idea, just one I would expect to fall flat. Whether or not it's ultimately necessary, I think it's most useful function will always be its current one. 

 

The best way to make that view accessible is to start building some tall buildings on the west bank of the Flats...

How is the view from the Superior Viaduct?

.

 

Edited October 17, 2024Oct 17 by Clefan98

2 hours ago, surfohio said:

 

I got to bike across this bridge when they closed off traffic for a marathon. The wind kicked up and it started sleeting and snowing and the surface was suddenly so slippery I couldn't really stop...it was absolutely terrifying lol. 

 

Ok but to put things in perspective, it snows or sleets in Cleveland on only about .075% of days. I regularly bike from the W58th trail along the Shoreway, then cut over on 29th to cross the Det-Shoreway bridge. I use this route most of the year, from March through October, including today.

22 hours ago, Htsguy said:

It seems like one of the problems-and just one of many-is that the vision changes and is scraped as another administration comes in so all the previous work is for naught. 

Then I take it as a positive that both Bibb and Ronayne are relatively new to their jobs and continue to be popular, and rightfully so - imho.

Well, I guess we will now need to see renderings without a stadium.  

2 hours ago, Clefan98 said:

 

Ok but to put things in perspective, it snows or sleets in Cleveland on only about .075% of days. I regularly bike from the W58th trail along the Shoreway, then cut over on 29th to cross the Det-Shoreway bridge. I use this route most of the year, from March through October, including today.

 

FYI We are talking about the high level shoreway bridge. You normally cannot bike over it, only in special circumstances. The jersey barrier sides would need to be made safer for pedestrians and cyclists because right now it's not at all designed for non-car use. 

12 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

Well, I guess we will now need to see renderings without a stadium.  

Today's events give me a lot more clarity as I work on my lakefront renderings. Hopefully I can post something soon over in Random Vis thread since it's been a hot sec since my last!

The configuration of W.3rd and E.18th is such a disappointment. So much money to rebuild the shoreway and no new developable land. The end result is a nicer walk to the stadium and a bike path. Definitely worth doing but still feels like a massive compromise.

Two tidbits from Bibb's press conference to be excited about with regards to the lakefront

 

"We've got federal support, with more on the way"

 

"We've already started to design" the lakefront without the Browns. 

 

Neither is surprising, and I'm pretty sure at least the second was known, but still good to hear confirmed. 

I hope there is still urgency to get working on closing the airport. That particular pocket where the stadium currently sits I don't think in isolation is especially attractive. It's the wider Lakefront with the airport included that's the karat IMO. 

9 minutes ago, Mendo said:

The configuration of W.3rd and E.18th is such a disappointment. So much money to rebuild the shoreway and no new developable land. The end result is a nicer walk to the stadium and a bike path. Definitely worth doing but still feels like a massive compromise.

There should be some new developable land at E 9th when the ramps to/from the shoreway are removed.  And maybe the marginal roads will go away?

6 hours ago, Dino said:

The details might be a little off, but about 10 years ago they completely shut down the West Shoreway to rebuild it.  It was closed for several months.  All east bound traffic was diverted to Detroit Ave.  People thought it would be chaos, but it turned out to not be a big deal at all in my opinion.  It was fine, and my commute was actually faster!  Granted they did have some cops for traffic control, but it convinced me that the the entire Shoreway is largely redundant.  

 

I would be in favor of eliminating the Shoreway all together since there are already existing City streets that run parallel to its entire length.

 

I'm still dancing though!  This is still a big improvement.

Shutdown to film Avengers I believe! 

48 minutes ago, Ethan said:

Two tidbits from Bibb's press conference to be excited about with regards to the lakefront

 

"We've got federal support, with more on the way"

 

"We've already started to design" the lakefront without the Browns. 

 

Neither is surprising, and I'm pretty sure at least the second was known, but still good to here confirmed. 

I'm glad we have a Mayor that knows to not put all his eggs in one basket. Downtown will be fine, it was fine from 96-98 and will be fine now. 

The lakefront looked quite nice from Mall C for the brief period after the old stadium was demolished and the new one was built.

33 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

There should be some new developable land at E 9th when the ramps to/from the shoreway are removed.  And maybe the marginal roads will go away?

 

This?

 

14 hours ago, LibertyBlvd said:

The lakefront looked quite nice from Mall C for the brief period after the old stadium was demolished and the new one was built.

and the reverse view from the lakefront toward the skyline is equally impressive - especially if you remember the views from the temporary stage set up for the NFL Draft that the whole world saw. I think we should focus on public access features as Bibb has emphasized. We really don't need too much housing or offices down there as we already have so much land to develop downtown that should be activated with the 1st lakefront plan. Maybe widen the planned landbridge, add an an amphitheatre with the Rock Hall in mind and those stunning cityscape views, and maybe a unique landmark scupture or park a la Chicago. Why not reconsider the Miguel Rosales concept bridge (in tandem with the planned narrow land bridge) that was planned in time for the 2016 R convention now that we will have more space with the stadium gone. It is ironic that the Rosales concept was probably scuttled in part by Jimmy/Dee (besides $ and timing) because it was a tight fit that would have infringed on the footprint of any planned stadium updates and the lakefrontplan they were about to propose. https://rosalespartners.com/portfolio/cleveland-lakefront-bridge/

We should also have our State $ reparations wish list ready as DeWine is going to owe us big time once/if he gives Jimmy boy the lionshare of public dolars as expected (and gives the same big $ amount to his hometown Cincitucky for their stadium remodel).

Here's a rendering to show how different this area would look in five years. And it could look even more different if the stadium is no longer there.

Could the current stadium be torn down and the soccer stadium be built here?  I would think that with the smaller footprint of the soccer stadium, there could be practice fields built as well, which would encourage outdoor activity during warmer months.  Just an idea.

2 minutes ago, cfdwarrior said:

Could the current stadium be torn down and the soccer stadium be built here?  I would think that with the smaller footprint of the soccer stadium, there could be practice fields built as well, which would encourage outdoor activity during warmer months.  Just an idea.

 

Stay tuned...

@KJP   The Big Tease™

As I've reflected more on the Browns' move, I continue to believe that the Brook Park location is fine, but that a Burke location would be better overall. Jimmy's statement specifically calls out the idea of using Burke and basically suggested his only problem with the idea is the timeline.

 

I hope that if Bibb and Ronayne really want Burke closed anyway (which it seems like they do) and if Jimmy would be interested in the space assuming it's ready soon enough (which it seems like he is) that the administration does some *serious* work with Mayor Pete and others to see what's possible.

 

Because the reasons that closing Burke should take 10 years are frankly BS. And I mean that seriously. They are completely made up reasons. Not by the administration mind you, but by other people. The only reason that it would take 10 years to close Burke instead of, say, 2 or 3 is that a few people decided it should be that way.

 

If the runways at Burke spontaneously turned into cheese, nobody would get hurt. No planes would fall out of the sky. Schedules would be disrupted for several weeks, not several months. People would adjust and everything would be fine. And that's assuming and instantaneous change with no time to plan.

 

The reason the administration can't just shut down the money-pit airport is 99% because of BS red tape, not any real world limitations. 

 

Something like this (on a much smaller scale) came up a week ago when Elon Musk was trying to deliver Starlink to North Carolina areas affected by the hurricane. Some obscure regulation or policy said he couldn't do it. He got pissed, called up Mayor Pete, and *poof* problem solved, now Starlink gets delivered.

 

So, as I said above, I think moving to Brook Park is not the end of the world. But if Mayor Bibb, Sherrod Brown, and Chris Ronayne really want the Browns to stay downtown, I hope, *hope* they are having some intense conversations with Mayor Pete and others because, truly, all it would take to make this happen is for a few motivated people to say "these rules suck; let's make some new rules." Those motivated people may have to include congresspeople and senators. But if Bibb, Brown, and Ronayne really mean what they're saying, they should work to get it done.

Agreed^ nothing feels concrete still… Bibb said he’ll still work to get a deal done in case brook park doesn’t work out. Sherrod Brown jumped on the bandwagon and said the browns should be in Cleveland. It feels like until Haslam actually buys the land anything is still possible 

 

also throw in Ronayne‘s comments to Ken yesterday saying it’s not over. Maybe this will help clear the red tape, the city, county, and state now have an argument to make to the people that will hold up closing burke, they can now say you’re going to cost our region and state 100s of millions to duplicate infrastructure  

Edited October 18, 2024Oct 18 by BoomerangCleRes

41 minutes ago, cfdwarrior said:

Could the current stadium be torn down and the soccer stadium be built here?  I would think that with the smaller footprint of the soccer stadium, there could be practice fields built as well, which would encourage outdoor activity during warmer months.  Just an idea.

I really like the idea of all the stadiums together in one clump though. Browns always felt disconnected from the rest. Would love the soccer stadium to be built next to the other 2 stadiums for some cohesion along with a nice brand new RTA stop would be amazing for them all. 

25 minutes ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

Agreed^ nothing feels concrete still… Bibb said he’ll still work to get a deal done in case brook park doesn’t work out. Sherrod Brown jumped on the bandwagon and said the browns should be in Cleveland. It feels like until Haslam actually buys the land anything is still possible 

 

also throw in Ronayne‘s comments to Ken yesterday saying it’s not over. Maybe this will help clear the red tape, the city, county, and state now have an argument to make to the people that will hold up closing burke, they can now say you’re going to cost our region and state 100s of millions to duplicate infrastructure  

 

Yup, and as Ken pointed out further down in his article, the pot of sin tax money that would, in all likelihood, be the linchpin of the public's contribution to the Brook Park Dome is under county, not city, control.  Ronayne isn't just beating his chest here, he appears to have serious bargaining power.

 

That said, the "worst" case scenario for downtown is a 17-acre or so "Brown(s)field" development site that also happens to be prime lakefront property.  Given the quality of football that has been played there the last quarter-century, I'm pretty sure it would qualify for Superfund status when it comes to redevelopment too :).

Edited October 18, 2024Oct 18 by Down_with_Ctown

1 hour ago, cfdwarrior said:

Could the current stadium be torn down and the soccer stadium be built here?  I would think that with the smaller footprint of the soccer stadium, there could be practice fields built as well, which would encourage outdoor activity during warmer months.  Just an idea.

 

With the Browns in the current stadium until at least 2028 wouldn't the timeline not work for the NWSL expansion? Or would they play at a college stadium for the first few seasons?

2 hours ago, KJP said:

Here's a rendering to show how different this area would look in five years. And it could look even more different if the stadium is no longer there.

 

With the stadium gone, I think there's more hope for better integrating W 3rd into the bigger picture, whatever that bigger picture is. So far all the recent renderings make W 3rd north of the tracks look really uninteresting and overly car-centric.  

15 minutes ago, surfohio said:

With the stadium gone, I think there's more hope for better integrating W 3rd into the bigger picture, whatever that bigger picture is. So far all the recent renderings make W 3rd north of the tracks look really uninteresting and overly car-centric.  

 

What, you don't like the 6 lane wide W.3rd bridge?

 

 

 

If they insist on making a direct connection to the west shoreway from W.3rd, then eliminate the Lakeside ramp that bisects the lot. This gives you a development opportunity along Lakeside and improves pedestrian and traffic flow by keeping the cars getting on/off the shoreway away from the Warehouse District.

 

1 hour ago, LlamaLawyer said:

As I've reflected more on the Browns' move, I continue to believe that the Brook Park location is fine, but that a Burke location would be better overall. Jimmy's statement specifically calls out the idea of using Burke and basically suggested his only problem with the idea is the timeline.

 

I hope that if Bibb and Ronayne really want Burke closed anyway (which it seems like they do) and if Jimmy would be interested in the space assuming it's ready soon enough (which it seems like he is) that the administration does some *serious* work with Mayor Pete and others to see what's possible.

 

Because the reasons that closing Burke should take 10 years are frankly BS. And I mean that seriously. They are completely made up reasons. Not by the administration mind you, but by other people. The only reason that it would take 10 years to close Burke instead of, say, 2 or 3 is that a few people decided it should be that way.

 

If the runways at Burke spontaneously turned into cheese, nobody would get hurt. No planes would fall out of the sky. Schedules would be disrupted for several weeks, not several months. People would adjust and everything would be fine. And that's assuming and instantaneous change with no time to plan.

 

The reason the administration can't just shut down the money-pit airport is 99% because of BS red tape, not any real world limitations. 

 

Something like this (on a much smaller scale) came up a week ago when Elon Musk was trying to deliver Starlink to North Carolina areas affected by the hurricane. Some obscure regulation or policy said he couldn't do it. He got pissed, called up Mayor Pete, and *poof* problem solved, now Starlink gets delivered.

 

So, as I said above, I think moving to Brook Park is not the end of the world. But if Mayor Bibb, Sherrod Brown, and Chris Ronayne really want the Browns to stay downtown, I hope, *hope* they are having some intense conversations with Mayor Pete and others because, truly, all it would take to make this happen is for a few motivated people to say "these rules suck; let's make some new rules." Those motivated people may have to include congresspeople and senators. But if Bibb, Brown, and Ronayne really mean what they're saying, they should work to get it done.

I agree with all this, except that I'm not sure Burke is actually a better location than Brook Park. Sure it's on the edge of downtown, but I continue to think that a 10-15 day/year usage stadium is not the best use of downtown (adjacent) lakefront land. And crucially, neither is parking. Prior discussions on this forum have led me to conclude that we likely wouldn't build a stadium at Burke without adding significant parking infrastructure. If that's the case, then I'm currently opposed.

 

I could be convinced though, depending on the plans. But I don't think there's a good use of this land, from the City's perspective, that also gives the Haslams' what they want. The only way I can see this not coming with boatloads of parking is if it is built in the Southwest corner. It's the only place close enough to utilize the downtown parking infrastructure. Problem is, it's also really the only portion of Burke well suited for development. If the Browns could be happy building their stadium village there I could see it maybe working, but from everything I've read here they want the parking. That's all revenue for them. They want the surface lots, and as long as that's the case their goals are fundamentally misaligned with those of the City, and the City should only move so far to accommodate them, as they have been doing so far. 

 

Basically, if the Haslams are interested in an urban format stadium nestled in a mixed use development zone than the City should engage them on Burke development. If they want a sea of lakefront parking the City shouldn't bend over backwards to accommodate them. 

13 minutes ago, Ethan said:

I agree with all this, except that I'm not sure Burke is actually a better location than Brook Park. Sure it's on the edge of downtown, but I continue to think that a 10-15 day/year usage stadium is not the best use of downtown (adjacent) lakefront land. And crucially, neither is parking. Prior discussions on this forum have led me to conclude that we likely wouldn't build a stadium at Burke without adding significant parking infrastructure. If that's the case, then I'm currently opposed.

 

I could be convinced though, depending on the plans. But I don't think there's a good use of this land, from the City's perspective, that also gives the Haslams' what they want. The only way I can see this not coming with boatloads of parking is if it is built in the Southwest corner. It's the only place close enough to utilize the downtown parking infrastructure. Problem is, it's also really the only portion of Burke well suited for development. If the Browns could be happy building their stadium village there I could see it maybe working, but from everything I've read here they want the parking. That's all revenue for them. They want the surface lots, and as long as that's the case their goals are fundamentally misaligned with those of the City, and the City should only move so far to accommodate them, as they have been doing so far. 

 

Basically, if the Haslams are interested in an urban format stadium nestled in a mixed use development zone than the City should engage them on Burke development. If they want a sea of lakefront parking the City shouldn't bend over backwards to accommodate them. 

I have no confidence that the Haslams have the vision or competence to complete an urban format stadium development.  I believe they are simply interested in increasing revenues by controlling the parking.  An extra 1-3 events per year from a Dome is just gravy.  

 

 

 

Wow that is....not great. Six lanes! There's not even an east-west crosswalk north side of the intersection :-(  

23 minutes ago, Ethan said:

I agree with all this, except that I'm not sure Burke is actually a better location than Brook Park. Sure it's on the edge of downtown, but I continue to think that a 10-15 day/year usage stadium is not the best use of downtown (adjacent) lakefront land. And crucially, neither is parking. Prior discussions on this forum have led me to conclude that we likely wouldn't build a stadium at Burke without adding significant parking infrastructure. If that's the case, then I'm currently opposed.

 

I could be convinced though, depending on the plans. But I don't think there's a good use of this land, from the City's perspective, that also gives the Haslams' what they want. The only way I can see this not coming with boatloads of parking is if it is built in the Southwest corner. It's the only place close enough to utilize the downtown parking infrastructure. Problem is, it's also really the only portion of Burke well suited for development. If the Browns could be happy building their stadium village there I could see it maybe working, but from everything I've read here they want the parking. That's all revenue for them. They want the surface lots, and as long as that's the case their goals are fundamentally misaligned with those of the City, and the City should only move so far to accommodate them, as they have been doing so far. 

 

Basically, if the Haslams are interested in an urban format stadium nestled in a mixed use development zone than the City should engage them on Burke development. If they want a sea of lakefront parking the City shouldn't bend over backwards to accommodate them. 

I agree with all of this too, except that I think one can forget that not all of Burke is really "lakefront land." I don't think anyone would call Battery Park "lakefront land," But the big neon letters that say "Battery Park" are actually only 300 yards from the water, not the sand, but the water, at Edgewater.

 

See below:

 

 

The distance from the waterfront to the interstate measuring across Burke is almost 600 meters. See below.

 

 

And the above is the part of Burke that's closest to downtown. If you go farther east, there are places where the lakefront on Burke is more than 700 meters from the highway. So I think there are lots of potential layouts where fit a stadium plus tons of parking onto Burke without jeopardizing any of the "lakefront."

4 hours ago, cfdwarrior said:

Could the current stadium be torn down and the soccer stadium be built here?  I would think that with the smaller footprint of the soccer stadium, there could be practice fields built as well, which would encourage outdoor activity during warmer months.  Just an idea.

I thought the conventional wisdom was that this was a bad location for a stadium because it was preventing all these potential developments. 

1 hour ago, LlamaLawyer said:

 So I think there are lots of potential layouts where fit a stadium plus tons of parking onto Burke without jeopardizing any of the "lakefront."

 

Agreed.  And if Haslam wants a sea of parking, require him to cover the parking with solar panels.