Way off topic now, but keep in mind that Burke is built on reclaimed lakefront built with dumped spoils, not native land.  Building anything with a sizeable footprint would quickly add up due to additional foundation costs...

Not off topic at all. This thread is for general lakefront development -- including Burke.

It would be flat out stupid to try and win investors and public support with structural imagery that is not legally permissible.

 

On the contrary, that's EXACTLY the imagery you would use to sell an idea to the public.  "Look at the pretty, tall buildings we can put there!" 

 

Now: How many spaces does the Muni lot hold?  When I see plans for a 1,000-space parking garage south of the stadium I get visions of Waterfront Line TOD dancing in my head, taking some of the space of that Muni lot, (tailgaters be damned).

Man, residential down there would sell like hotcakes...both condo and apts.

 

I'll buy one if they call it "Browns Town" (like Wrigleyville in Chicago) :D

 

And what about a Cleveland Browns HOF/History Musuem down there.  That alone would be a cheap and easy spin off for the nearby storefronts to be.

There should be a Hall of Fame for the same reason the aquarium should have gone down there.  with the sci center, RRHOF, and William G Mather; the area is prime for family oriented/interactive museums.

If you are looking for motivation behind this development, look no further than what the patriots and kraft is doing around gillette stadium

Or what's being developed around the Meadowlands sports complexes in New Joyzee.

Or what's being developed around the Meadowlands sports complexes in New Joyzee.

 

Ha ha very funny! KJP that place is ridiculous....indoor ski resort, what a terrific idea lol.

 

p.s. if you want to sound authentic, it's New Juhhzee

^ I always thought it was Noo Joi-zee...(edit:Surf beat me too it. He's lived there so I will take his phoenetic pronuciation spelling over mine)

 

but seriously, it seems like a very feasible plan, or at least a feasible straw man to build off of. What are the implications of building on the fill that makes up the piers? Does it get really expensive at a certain point or are you basically going to have to drill down to bedrock for any building of a modest size? I am not picturing anything bigger than 6-10 stories down there.

So it's all very preliminary of course, but a thought:

 

One of the ideas tossed around for the mall renovation was to cover the Willard and Huntington Garages with parkspace and connect the adjacent parks to the Mall (creating a T of sorts).  If they make some large new parking garage that extends out to the shoreway from the Huntington garage they should work with the county to make the entire top level (of the combined garages) parkspace (mall extension). 

 

That way the pedestrian walk would be part of the park.  Trees would separate the park from the shoreway, and it would add to the connection between the Lake and the City.

 

[EDIT:  As Stephen Litt pointed out, you've gotta do this RIGHT from the start.  I think the Pedestrian bridge needs to be very forward thinking.  Ideally, Cleveland, in 30+ years, will have a strong connection to the waterfront.  The new bridge can't be some steal semi-permanent looking skyway that features a parking lot to the west and a railroad canyon to the east.  As the drawing below shows, we need the surface to resemble the mall's pedestrian paths, and should have trees.  It certainly CAN be done, but only at a higher cost.  Either way, the more this evolves organically from the Bluff/Mall, the better ...in my opinion.

 

The masterplan image shows a "Train station" label below the stadium, but isn't clear where exactly that would be. I would assume it would be under the parking deck spanning the tracks.

 

 

 

 

If you look closely, it actually shows tracks heading right to where it says "Train Station"

 

Those are Shoreway ramps to West 3rd and the port. The RTA tracks are south of that, and CSX/NS/Amtrak tracks are even farther south.

Actually if you look at the full picture you'll see they have the Waterfront Line moved further North to, presumably, an underground station that would be closer to the new development.  Some architect added $15M worth of work with a a few strokes of the pencil.  That said, it would be a great move to have a legitimate (subway style) station out there, and might be a catalyst for looking at the downtown loop concept.

A subway station? In my Cleveland? Nice. Good catch, too - I didn't notice.

 

Re: The Parking Garage, are there any structural/engineering reasons that argue against putting greenspace on the top? How many spots does that eliminate?

The Huntington Garage has about 250 spots on the top level (counting from satellite image).  Using the above to estimate, a full extension would probably come to 400 or so, depending on organization of spots.  I also don't know how many levels could be made above the rail tracks (probably only 1 or 2 before the surface lot.  That said a really ambitious version would include a parallel garage coming from the Willard lot out to the RRHF.  These two would add between 500 - 800 net spots (depending on the # of levels).

 

...but one could always take the Rapid!  :whip:

Re: The Parking Garage, are there any structural/engineering reasons that argue against putting greenspace on the top?

 

I can't see why.  It is built to hold hundreds of cars.  I suppose the only issue would be creating a good water run-off system, which wouldn't be that hard.

^I would imagine it's purely an economic and political fight...

I sure hope there's no structural or engineering reasons not to put green space on top of a parking garage!

 

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=41.507533,-81.697292&spn=0.002611,0.006539&t=h&z=18

Actually if you look at the full picture you'll see they have the Waterfront Line moved further North to, presumably, an underground station that would be closer to the new development.  Some architect added $15M worth of work with a a few strokes of the pencil.  That said, it would be a great move to have a legitimate (subway style) station out there, and might be a catalyst for looking at the downtown loop concept.

 

WTF?? So the Waterfront Line tracks would now cross the Port-truck access driveway at-grade? OK... And yet they still show the Waterfront Line station at West 3rd. Well now I'm totally confused!

KJP -    This is clearly an early draft.  More a "thought-piece", as the architects probably hadn't done too much research into the current engineering and designs.  If you look you can see that the waterfront line is "split" between the old route and this new subway style route.  Perhaps they wanted to keep both to show "options", or maybe they didn't know to delete the old one (thinking it was amtrak, or commercial freight).

 

I doubt the firm was even from Cleveland. 

^Yeah, the freight train they have entering that subway portal was a tip off that they might not have really thought it all through.

Burnam_2011--that's a very nice graphic you made--i like the idea a lot of parkland above the garages, better connecting the parts of Downtown south of Lakeside with the new action at the lake. And you're right--if the walkways is wide enough, it will feel less like a bridge and more like a continuation of space.

So what has happened to The Cleveland Cuyahoga County Port Authority Lakefront Development plan developed by Ehrenkrantz Eckstut & Kuhn Architects in Sept of 2009?  Is this plan now dead?  I am getting tired of plans consistently being developed but nothing adopted.  I much preferred this plan over the latest dream.  All I hope is that sooner rather than later this prime piece of land get's its attention.

^^ I was wondering the same thing..

Port leadership changed and the long term plans to move the Port to E55 were scrapped.

Looking at the aeriel rendering I would think that the garage and the walkway seem to be the most feasible to be built. I understand that this is just a concept but the garage could actually be a money maker and the more likely to get financed. I can see it being used for both lake front activities and MM/CC use. And if you go to the website (http://thelakefrontdistrict.com) their description of the garage includes a public space on the roof describing it as "Approximately 1,000 stalls with Park Areas / Athletic Fields on top". As far as the other parts of the plan I just don't see the Mixed Use buildings having much of a chance with out a commitment from a tenant. And they wont be built for spec. 

I like the tie in with the Clinic if they are interested, maybe some type of Sports and Injury Clinic could be established there. In the rendering it does show what appears to be a new structure attached to the stadium that is branded with the clinic logo.

I do wish though they could include in the discussion the idea of a retractable roof again. With that we could be a player in numerous events much like Indianapolis is year round. And we would also be considered for a SuperBowl/FinalFour/Bowl Games etc.

 

Remember this from Corna?

 

 

 

 

 

 

They would maybe give us one superbowl if that and that would be all. They want it in warm weather areas. Look at Detroit. But them giving it to New York City is bullshit. If they are going to quit the crap, and actually give it to a cold weather city, then every city should be in the running.

Sorry to say this, but if Cleveland put as much effort into "doing" as it puts into "planning" we would have a lot more stuff built. Sometimes I think we put so much stuff on paper as if it were a drug to relieve the pain of what we haven't physically put on the landscape.

KJP, I'm with you.  As I've tried to show with posts around UO it doesn't always take much to draw up a design and dream a new park, residential area, or development.  The nuts and bolts are what matter. 

 

Can anyone out there take a quick stroll down memory lane to December 2004 when this was unveiled?  I'm curious if this sort of plan was meant to be a complete guideline, a mere image of "what could be", or a plan that simply had no backing after it was unveiled.  I'm somewhat frustrated by the fact that the 2004 version of the FEB project made it onto this image as though it was "a done deal". 

 

 

Also, not trying to be negative, but in sincerity why is this still up?  Does anyone expect this to be actionable (even within, say 30 years)? I'm pretty sure that's a no.

I am a little confused.  If I remember correctly, the 2009 Port Plan could not be started until some ridiculous date , like 2030, because the Port had to move.  Is this a different piece of land that can be developed quicker?

 

What gives me hope:  Holmgrem, Nance, and Lerner have attached their credibility to this project.  They have already hired a sports-entertainment district consultant to help with the project.  Also, they have a financial incentive to develop the area.  This was an interesting quote from Rob Robinson, the consultant:

 

"Lambeau Field is an interesting example as Coach Holmgren said there is a great tradition there and a great association between the community and its team there. The stadium itself was a bit isolated and not very well tied into the community physically. When we started working on that project in 1999-20000, annual visitation to the stadium was about 700,000 people really just for football games. Today, when you go to Lambeau Field it is a real address in Green Bay. They have annual visitation over three million. In fact, we are now planning with the Packers our next phase of development, which we believe will increase that visitation by at least two fold."

 

I think at the very least, they will make a bona fide effort to shop this plan to private investors and see if there is any interest. This is more than what has been done in the past. 

Sorry to say this, but if Cleveland put as much effort into "doing" as it puts into "planning" we would have a lot more stuff built. Sometimes I think we put so much stuff on paper as if it were a drug to relieve the pain of what we haven't physically put on the landscape.

 

Right KJP. Consultants get paid. Pretty pictures result. Local media gushes. Nothing gets actually done.

 

Somebody on here once said they've got 15 years of beautiful Lakefront conceptual images kept in a drawer for the sake of hilarity.

 

Well, I have that same drawer full of great ideas for the waterfront. There is just so much potential. And I get more and more jaded wondering what the heck is wrong with us. Wondering if anything will ever happen in my lifetime.

 

I hope that since the Browns and their billionaire owner are involved, that this is the one that actually gets accomplished. This whole thing is way out of left field, but to me this plan makes sense and seems realistic. Not a 50 year plan, but something that can be done realistically soon.

 

I wonder what will cause the death of this one....FAA? Unstable soils? Political infighting? Port instability? An even worse economy???

I am a little confused.  If I remember correctly, the 2009 Port Plan could not be started until some ridiculous date , like 2030, because the Port had to move.  Is this a different piece of land that can be developed quicker?

 

It is all a bit confusing.  I spent some time retracing the chronology yesterday.  I think the 2009 plans were released during a very tumultuous time in the Port Authority when the move to E55th was already in some doubt.  I'm pretty sure everyone made it clear the plan could be phased in and the the area subject to this Browns plan could be developed in the near term regardless of any port relocation plan.  But the entire build-out would have taken decades, contingent on poor facilities moving.

Port leadership changed and the long term plans to move the Port to E55 were scrapped.

 

I guess I'm a little far behind then.

Is the port moving at all?

^^If anybody can get things done in this town its a Billionaire sports owners.

From Cleveland Magazine's interview with Interim Port CEO Peter Raskind, talking about the plans to relocate the port to E. 55th...

 

"The relocation plan was a $600 million gamble that Cleveland could attract a business that had never evolved on the Great Lakes because the biggest ocean freighters can't fit down the St. Lawrence Seaway. The containers would have had to be offloaded and reloaded onto smaller ships.

 

Everything Raskind learned made the plan look worse. The new port would've been built on an expensive new island made of dumped dredge material, and there was no easy way to get railroad tracks to it from across Interstate 90.

 

So last May, his final month on the job, Raskind wrote an opinion piece for The Plain Dealer that deserves to be required reading, a lesson in how to end a yearslong, communitywide debate with a single paragraph. Raskind called the East 55th Street plan "ill conceived," "built upon layers of questionable assumptions," and "never viable." The port didn't have to move because it had plenty of room for more business, he wrote, and if it ever moved to make way for development, a new port needed a less expensive site.

 

^ good find.

 

I think the most reassuring aspect of this latest idea is that the Port can peacefully coexist in close proximity with mixed-use Lakefront development. That there is much precedent for this elsewhere in the world.

 

I always believed that the Port activities are pretty amazing....International ships always coming and going.

 

It's not far fetched to imagine nearby Residential with some terrific views.

^^If anybody can get things done in this town its a Billionaire sports owners.

 

There is a lot of old money in this city, but too many are sitting on their parents' or grandparents' properties, content to collect interest or sub-market leases or tax write-offs. They need to sell and go sit on a beach someplace. Other times I've been in meetings where everyone at the table agreed that a plan was a great plan, but when it came time to identify funding partners, everyone sat quietly as if they hoped someone else would speak up first.

 

I realize that the returns aren't there in this stagnant Northeast Ohio market for world-changing investments, but not all segments of Northeast Ohio's economy are stagnant. And if the potential (or tacit commitment) for investment isn't there, don't bother developing a plan.

 

I hope the folks involved with this lakefront plan have already made their intentions known to planners and other investors that they are willing to open up their checkbooks and invest in this city. /RANT OFF/

"Ill conceived". Those words should describe Peter Raskinds career as CEO with NCB, and how he walked away with millions as NCB failed. When did this guy become an expert on Port operations and how is he now an expert in Education as the interim school chief. What interim job is next.  This guy can defiantly talk a good game.

^some times it takes an outsider's perspective to see things for what they really are.  A pile of crap. 

 

And if you went back & read the article on National City's failure, he's the first to admit they were over exposed in real estate investments...

There is a lot of old money in this city, but too many are sitting on their parents' or grandparents' properties, content to collect interest or sub-market leases or tax write-offs. They need to sell and go sit on a beach someplace.

 

Maybe we need Ari Maron to do some motivational speaking.  He seems to be the only one who gets it.

I sure hope some of you hit it big and become private developers here in Cleveland.  Become the 'doers', I say.  Before you know it, the WHD lots will be filled, the Lakefront will be fully developed, and we will have the a beautiful 3 mile long, 500 ft wide densely built mixed use neighborhood lining Euclid Avenue between Downtown and UC instead of all of these pretty pictures.

^lol.  Reality is that there is ZERO development of any kind in Cleveland without major contributions from "free money" sources, in the way of subsidies, tax abatements, infrastructure assistance, etc.  Even Ari Maron will tell you that.

^What about those apartments in University Circle?

^some times it takes an outsider's perspective to see things for what they really are.  A pile of crap. 

 

And if you went back & read the article on National City's failure, he's the first to admit they were over exposed in real estate investments...

 

I am sure those who's lives were changed as a result of his mismanagement appreciate his admission of failure.

 

Now back to the topic.

 

Hts121...like I have said many times on this board...we are really good at spending other people's money, no matter how speculative the venture might be.

^we are even better at creating causes of action to which others have to respond

My point is, if you don't have the money or a promise of money, don't waste time creating the plan. I know that plans are needed to shake money loose, but I get tired of plans being released when there's no "juice" (aka: pledge or big-money sponsor) behind them. This lakefront plan appears to be different, as Randy Lerner has some coins and knows others who have them too.

I don't get how you would garner a pledge or big-money sponsor without at least a conceptual drawing, which is all we are basically dealing with here.  These are the types of things that need to be brought to the boardroom when trying to sell the project to investors. 

^Exactly, and its nice to have 2 billionaires currently interested in the city.

^Yes good point.  It also may have something to do with Randy Lerner now making Cleveland his main residence. Maybe he wants to be more involved.

I don't get how you would garner a pledge or big-money sponsor without at least a conceptual drawing, which is all we are basically dealing with here.  These are the types of things that need to be brought to the boardroom when trying to sell the project to investors. 

 

I have no problem with conceptual drawings like this, or that there's some deep pockets pushing it. If anything, I'm holding this up as the way to do it -- except for using the media to reach out to developers. I would have hoped they would have had that lined up first before going public.