I just don't like the location. If this was built on the south side of the Shoreway -- or even on both sides of the Shoreway with a walkway linking the two sides, I might be more positive. How often are office workers going to use private jets vs. wanting to walk to lunch? Increasingly, we seem to be locating office buildings to benefit the few at the inconvenience of the many (most recently by putting offices out in the far-eastern 'burbs closer to where the executives live).

 

I'd be even more positive if this added office capacity was built into downtown's existing footprint, such as on all the undeveloped land within the CBD rather than be so disconnected from it. Why are we expanding downtown's office footprint when what we already have is so under-utilized and lacking in critical mass? This is like adding more yard area when the existing lawn has some patches of dead grass and bare dirt.

 

I don't see how the market can sustain adding more office capacity via this lakefront plan when downtown already has so many vacancy issues, low rents and undeveloped areas. Lets address the existing CBD first before re-purposing an airport's front yard to suit a suburban developer's dream of what downtown should be.

I don't know if we can look at this as a downtown development plan, and express our concerns on how this will not interact well with the city.  I have never viewed Burke really as downtown due to it being severley disconnected with the city.  This is simply a developer trying to make money on an office development and he sees an opportunity here with the amenities the property has to offer.  He could more easily find land in other parts of the city and build office space, but as Wolstien said, this is kind of aan easy project that can happen...barring that hurdles are jumped with the city. 

 

Therefore, this project in my mind lines right up with a office park development in Independence or Westlake other than the fact that the income tax dollars will be colleted by the city of Cleveland.  If I saw a project of this scale get proposed for land near Carnegie and 9th or Prospect and 14th, then I would be extremely dissapointed.  But given the location, I don't see how any type of office  developement would benefit the city. 

If its part of a well thought out plan that includes retail, restaurants, housing, etc, it could be a great thing.  If not, it's not much to get excited about

The layout of offices depicted in that article is horrible, but I know the City's recent lakefront plan did call for offices at that location. However, they were laid out in a more urban friendly manner that allowed for lake access as well. It's just like this developer completely ignored that plan, so hopefully the City sticks to their guns as to how this area should be designed and not just let this developer slap whatever they want at that location. If done right this could be a good development and it also has access to the Rapid.

@Cleveland, Ohio, if this place gets filled with office workers from the suburbs (and judging by Geis' urban track record in Midtown, this has a very good shot at succeeding), an Applebees or Fridays probably wouldn't be far behind. (I realize that makes some of you hate this even more, lol, but I'm just being honest!)

 

I think it'll work. I've had experience with the culture of the people that this is trying to attract. Many of them WANT to be in the city of Cleveland (because its the sexy thing to do right now, many of them come down here more than they used to for recreation and some of them live here now). But they don't want to venture too far out of their safety zone. They aint doing the office tower. Yeah this most likely won't have structured parking, but it will have surface parking and it will probably be free. They LOVE that. I know, I know, lol, but they do. I'm almost certain this will work. The demand is there. And the tax incentives don't hurt either.

 

@KJP, I feel you, man! But it is what it is, as Mayor Jackson says.

The layout of offices depicted in that article is horrible, but I know the City's recent lakefront plan did call for offices at that location. However, they were laid out in a more urban friendly manner that allowed for lake access as well. It's just like this developer completely ignored that plan, so hopefully the City sticks to their guns as to how this area should be designed and not just let this developer slap whatever they want at that location. If done right this could be a good development and it also has access to the Rapid.

 

For reference

 

Well, at least that's visually attractive. If cross-shoreway pedestrian linkages were improved and the muny lots developed, then I'd be supportive. That would at least provide better connectivity with the rest of downtown.

That site plan is just a mess.  It's like he dropped his Legos on a map of the Lakefront and said, "eh, good enough".

Question on the graphic above (in post 1092):  It says, pointing to the terminal, "Reuse and Preserve Existing Terminal". What does that mean? Reuse it as an airport terminal or reuse it as something else? If the latter, will a new terminal be built? It'd be a great time to build a new terminal with a secure area, screening area, jetways, and baggage carousels---to be like other airports in the country....perhaps such a building could be further east on N. Marginal if not in the same location....

I think that was from Frankie J's Lakefront Plan.  I believe they recommended making the terminal a restaurant or some other public use to have it link with the public use of the pier.  Can't remember fully.

The layout of offices depicted in that article is horrible, but I know the City's recent lakefront plan did call for offices at that location. However, they were laid out in a more urban friendly manner that allowed for lake access as well. It's just like this developer completely ignored that plan, so hopefully the City sticks to their guns as to how this area should be designed and not just let this developer slap whatever they want at that location. If done right this could be a good development and it also has access to the Rapid.

 

For reference

 

If that design plan is chosen then I believe everyone would be satisfied. It has some density isn't bland at all and beautifies the area down there even more than the rock hall. Cleveland's lakefront isn't small by any means and there will be more room for other developments. I actually think if this is built then that would spur future development such as residential and recreation...You have to start somewhere and this is it and if building things like this is what it takes to attract more companies to Cleveland proper than so be it. This is being overblown in the negative department, obviously this isnt a final design and just a quick example. It seems as if people on here feel this is the last of the empty lakefront land left and it's far from it. Also it's progress and major progress at that which ends the frustration of the lakefront sitting empty. Just give it a chance to play out fully then give your final judgement.

@KJP, you have to look at this development as something separate than developing parking lots in the CBD because of this reason: for the companies that this appeals to, building office towers in the CBD is NOT an option. Companies that like this kind of development do not like the kind of development you're saying (and most of us agree) we should have. These companies aren't coming to the CBD. Period. And I DEFINITELY would rather have this kind of development by Burke instead of smack dab in the middle of downtown. I think very few of us would be happy with that. So I think that if you compare the possibility of development in the CBD with this project, you won't be able to judge this project on the merits because, as I said before, building in the CBD is not an option for the type of companies that would move to this development anyway. They're interested in being in the city of Cleveland (for a myriad of reasons: tax incentives, the sexiness, the fact that some of their employees live downtown or close to it,  etc.) But the companies that like this kind of development are NOT interested in building in the Warehouse District or in Public Square or any of that. THIS is designed to appeal to a specific segment of the market that wouldn't even consider coming downtown without it.

What is the appeal besides free parking? Thats what I dont understand. I understand people wanting to work close to home, so suburban office parks work. But what is the appeal of one downtown.

As stated previously, this development would allow people to work downtown who otherwise wouldn't.  Very much so a win win.

 

Also, the city neads to be functional and appealing to all walks of life. In my view, that is the definiton of a vibrant city.  It can't just be for hipsters, or ghetto dwellwers or liberals or conservatives.  This would most definately be a development that appeals to the conservative crowd.  Down the road, it may even have an Outback restaurant at its front entrance versus Lola or Greenhosue tavern.  Not only would that satisfty the needs of a rather dull 50 year old Strongsvillite, but I'm sure a 25 yo hipster in skinny jeans may crave a blooming onion someday. 

I wonder if a company like flight options would move here?

This thread has been pruned - folks, if what you've written isn't related to actual news of lakefront development, think before you click the "Post" button. Thanks!

Crain's coverage of Geis's proposal:

 

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20120806/SUB1/120809915

 

Offices at Burke first in plan for lakefront

Geis Cos. will lease 20 acres, talk with tenant

 

From this, it appears that they aren't trying to steal from the CBD, but rather from the 'burbs or elsewhere...

I honestly prefer low-density here. Downtown offices/streets need to keep the views to the Lake (plus the air restrictions). I see row houses there, done with Amsterdam-like density.. but that's just me.

 

It doesnt have to be all density all the time. Just like midtown.. buildings can work here if they are planned well. This is still a pretty dense development, and if its vacant land currently, its simply adding density to the existing. So its actually making the area more dense.

 

Get it built. But add boat slips, and some canals, and a few bike paths, please. ;)

 

Heck yeah. I can picture some wetland re-development and boardwalk trails too. There could be Fed money in conservation efforts.

 

In some ways I think being a bit disconnected from downtown could actually work out as an advantage. You've got the gorgeous views of the water and the city, but it's really a world away; it's a tranquil place, almost rural even.

 

edit: I'm including land north of the runways in my assessment...obviously it's not "tranquil" right next to the shoreway.

That all seems like good news...hopefully it continues! Can't wait to start seeing the results of the studies and some renderings...also what this large company is!

Heck yeah. I can picture some wetland re-development and boardwalk trails too. There could be Fed money in conservation efforts.

 

In some ways I think being a bit disconnected from downtown could actually work out as an advantage. You've got the gorgeous views of the water and the city, but it's really a world away; it's a tranquil place, almost rural even.

 

edit: I'm including land north of the runways in my assessment...obviously it's not "tranquil" right next to the shoreway

 

 

To me, being adjacent to the runways IS tranquil. Re conservation efforts, keep in mind we must have airport-compatible uses. You don't want more wildlife next to the airport, particularly, birds. Also, boardwalks north of the runway, although a very cool idea--imagine a bike/walking path north of the runways along the lake---would likely be fought by FAA, TSA, etc on security issues....

 

The layout of offices depicted in that article is horrible, but I know the City's recent lakefront plan did call for offices at that location. However, they were laid out in a more urban friendly manner that allowed for lake access as well. It's just like this developer completely ignored that plan, so hopefully the City sticks to their guns as to how this area should be designed and not just let this developer slap whatever they want at that location. If done right this could be a good development and it also has access to the Rapid.

 

For reference

 

 

I just wanted to echo these sentiments. The Geis plan is indeed horrible. We need much better for our waterfront. The above illustration plan from Mayor Jackson is much more appropriate.

 

Do we want to emulate San Francisco, or Oakland?

Do we want to emulate San Francisco, or Oakland?

 

Neither. Cleveland.

 

Every city should be unique.

Do we want to emulate San Francisco, or Oakland?

 

Neither. Cleveland.

 

Every city should be unique.

 

Agree with you 100 percent. I'm speaking in the context of what works and what doesn't when designing a more accessible waterfront. That was my point, not that I want Cleveland to copycat anyone else.

Keep in mind that the development's proximity to the airport pretty much dictates the height of the buildings will be limited....

Ch 3 story on the potential Geis development. http://www.wkyc.com/news/article/255378/45/Cleveland-First-lakefront-developer-has-surfaced

Keep in mind that the development's proximity to the airport pretty much dictates the height of the buildings will be limited....

 

Right. I keep hearing the term "low rise."

 

What height is that, exactly?

 

I'm really liking the Jackson rendering, maybe it can be useful with the taller buildings scaled down a bit.  It should be a concern that as far as I can tell, Geis has zero experience in waterfront development.

Fantastic news.

It sounds like this thing has a really good chance of happening, and that is massively exciting to me.

 

Truth is there are a lot of new office types that dictate large open areas, such as a warehouse, rather than smaller focused floor plans. Companies around 100 people or less want everyone on a single floor. Open, and often movable.

 

Best thing in the video was the last part.. (paraphrasing) "are they worried about the empty office space downtown"? "No, they want to lure companies from moving into a box in the suburbs"

 

Rocks my socks.

Scav I think you have a strong point there.  Offering modern office space is a good idea for Cleveland, the only question is where do we put it since it does seem to disrupt the urban flow wherever it lands.  If it were up to me, I'd choose this part of the lakefront over midtown Euclid Avenue, because I think there's less potential urbanity here to disrupt.  I don't see the airport moving and I don't see anything truly desirable ever getting built so close to it.

I'd like to punch Chicago right in its face out of jealousy. Here is another template we should be following up on asap.

 

Northerly Island to Soon Become Lake Michigan Oasis

Midwest | Friday, August 3, 2012 | Chris Bentley

 

Northerly Island will soon begin to take shape as an oasis in Lake Michigan.

 

Gazing at Chicago from the east, it’s impossible to ignore the city’s towering skyline. But the latest gem on the southwest shores of Lake Michigan won’t be made from glass and steel—it’s prairie grass and wetlands.

 

Northerly Island, a 91-acre peninsula that juts into Lake Michigan just south of the Loop, was promised a visionary makeover from Studio Gang and landscape architects JJR in 2010. Now the Chicago Park District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are preparing to break ground this fall.

 

http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/archives/43877

^Don't you think the lake ice would wreak havoc on those soft shorelines if something like that were done in Cleveland?  Chicago doesn't seem to get ice like we do...

 

However, if Burke were to ever close this is exactly what I would like to see in it's place.  With the exception of the far East end of Burke which would be reserved for a Port relocation.

^Don't you think the lake ice would wreak havoc on those soft shorelines if something like that were done in Cleveland?  Chicago doesn't seem to get ice like we do...

 

However, if Burke were to ever close this is exactly what I would like to see in it's place.  With the exception of the far East end of Burke which would be reserved for a Port relocation.

 

It's complicated. Ice at Edgewater actually collects sand into dunes on top of the ice. Then the ice melts and new sandbars form. The sandbars help prevent erosion...it's actually quite fascinating.

 

I still maintain this Chicago-type plan could be established north of Burke. We need space for dredged sediment. If the top outer layer has the natural finishing touches that Northerly Island is getting, then it could be incredible. It would look and function so much better than the typical breakwall construction of the past.

^ and don't forget what the corps and the city did with black river dredgings on the waterfront on the near eastside of lorain is very similar to that chicago plan - so yes indeed it could be done on lake erie too even with the erosion being so intense.

 

 

 

I still maintain this Chicago-type plan could be established north of Burke. We need space for dredged sediment.

 

I think we have enough land to build on without needing to create more.

I still maintain this Chicago-type plan could be established north of Burke. We need space for dredged sediment.

 

I think we have enough land to build on without needing to create more.

 

I agree with you in the sense that there is plenty of underutilized lakefront to build on.

 

Here's why I disagree:

 

1. The Chicago example is less about "building upon" and more about re-establishing natural space that is accessible.

2. Much of our lakefront is not buildable (bad soil, air restrictions, port operations).

3. Much of our lakefront is inaccessible; access to the water is extremely limited, ie, you cannot "touch" it because of "armoring the coastline" through breakwalls . On the other hand, the Chicago plan brings you back into direct contact with the lake. We desperately need more of that.

4. Breakwalls are unsightly, naturalization is far more attractive and much more beneficial to the environment.

5. We have dredged sediment that has to go somewhere, so we might as well put it to the best possible use. A great deal of Fed funding is available. Dyke 14 for example is a great step forward. But if you look at how it completely fails to interact with the water, it's awful. We can (finally!) use modern techniques that recapture how a natural shoreline is supposed to look and function. 

 

 

5. We have dredged sediment that has to go somewhere, so we might as well put it to the best possible use. A great deal of Fed funding is available. Dyke 14 for example is a great step forward. But if you look at how it completely fails to interact with the water, it's awful. We can (finally!) use modern techniques that recapture how a natural shoreline is supposed to look and function. 

 

 

Exactly. The Army Corps of Engineers has to dredge the river and harbor. And they have to dump the material (mostly sand) somewhere. So where should it be dumped to do the city and the region the most good?

Interested to see what plans the Chicago project has for addressing contaminants that might in the dredgings like Cleveland's dyke 14...

Interested to see what plans the Chicago project has for addressing contaminants that might in the dredgings like Cleveland's dyke 14...

 

I should know this, but today I believe that dredged sediment has to be treated before it's relocated.

 

Here's a nice overview. It shows that there are options for how the sediment can be placed (for us like KJP mentioned it's mostly sand). Again, the past, common practice of depositing between breakwalls doesn't not foster access to the water. Today we can achieve a better, more natural application that re-establishes a natural looking coastline.

 

http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/budm/intro.cfm?Topic=Intro

 

Due to growing scientific knowledge and public awareness of using dredged material as a valuable resource, beneficial use of dredged material has become a viable alternative to traditional "dredge and dispose" methods for many projects.

 

Prior to 1970, beneficial uses of dredged material typically included creating or expanding land for airports, ports, residential, or commercial development. Environmental, economic, social, and other benefits can be derived from the productive use of dredged material. Dredged material is increasingly used beneficially for a greater variety of projects and purposes.

 

Beneficial uses of dredged material have been classified, for the purpose of these discussions, into seven categories:

 

-Habitat Development

-Shore Protection

-Parks and Recreation

-Reclamation and Remediation

-Construction and Industrial

Typically, dredged material is placed in a confined disposal facility, which is a technical way of saying its placed in a lakefront setting that's not open to the public. It can stay after a period of time (don't know how long) so that precipitation and evaporation naturally washes it clean of pollutants. Then that area can be used by the public, or moved to another area that is already used by the public. I wrote an article a few years ago about using dredged material for expanding the lakefront's land area.

potential Browns new owner jimmy haslem talks about lakefront development.  I tend to believe it will get done with him involved.

 

On lakefront development: “We’re highly interested in seeing that area develop. One, it’s great for Cleveland, and two, I think it’s great for the Cleveland Browns. What our role in that is, I don’t know enough to comment. But are we interested in seeing that happen? Absolutely. I’ve been very impressed with the amount of activity downtown and it looks like Cleveland is on the upswing economically. I know there are several projects that are at least in the talking phases. But we’d love to see that happen.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2012/08/exclusive_interview_new_browns.html#incart_river_default

Glad to see.

I can't be the only one that would rather have the area west of the Browns stadium developed instead? This just smells of another project taking the easy way out with undeveloped land. Normally I'm in favor of any real development because momentum always leads to more projects. But I was hoping to see the port moved to the east side to vacate more land around FEB.

Moved to the east side of what? You mean to East 55th Street? The port isn't going anywhere. Public funding for major projects is fast disappearing with the increasing number of anti-investment politicians in Columbus and Washington DC. If the private sector isn't going to fund it, it's probably not going to get built. And that means more evolutionary projects (if at all), not revolutionary projects.

Moving forward......

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2012/09072012/index.php

 

City Planning Commission

Agenda for September 7, 2012

 

Ordinance No. 1070-12(Ward 3/Councilmember Cimperman): Authorizing the Director of Port Control to execute agreements and such other documents as may be appropriate to enter into an option to lease with Geis Companies for approximately twenty (20) acres of real property commonly known as the Burke Development District for a term of one (1) year with an additional one (1) year option exercisable by the Director of Port Control. 

From the inaugural Port of Cleveland Newsletter:

 

New Port work boats will soon begin removing floating debris from Cleveland Harbor

 

If you happen to pass the Cuyahoga River later this month, keep an eye open for Flotsam and Jetsam, the Port’s two new, custom-designed work vessels that will soon be removing floating debris from the Cuyahoga River ship channel and the downtown Lake Erie shoreline.

 

The Port – working with the staff of the Cuyahoga River Remedial Action Plan – received a $425,160 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency grant last year to build the boats, which will work in tandem to collect and remove a wide range of floating debris from tree limbs to plastic bottles.  This debris is more than an eyesore  – it can be a problem for the commercial vessels that use the ship channel daily, as well as for recreational boaters and wildlife.

 

Why the names Flotsam and Jetsam? To quote Jim White, the Port’s director of Sustainable Infrastructure Programs: “You are what you eat.” Jim also developed the design concept for the boats. Research dating back to 1999 made two things clear: too much urban debris was entering the river, and natural debris was finding its way into the shipping channel from natural riverbank erosion. While these types of debris are unavoidable in waterways, the Port made it a priority to develop methods for cleanup as well as solutions with long-term economic, environmental and community benefits.

 

What makes Flotsam and Jetsam the right boats to get the job done is a unique and innovative design that allows them to nimbly navigate the tight spaces of Cleveland’s famously crooked river—work that large-scale debris harvester vessels used at several ports along the East Coast cannot perform.

 

Flotsam will work as the excavator, scooping up debris with a shovel and then placing it in the “Bagster” containers that Jetsam will carry. The debris will then be transferred to pre-determined sites along the shore for pickup. Flotsam won’t be the only one doing the heavy lifting; Jetsam will have a specially built crane that can grab larger, heavier pieces of debris, such as tires and logs. From April through October (weather depending), the boats will be on the water daily with a combined crew of 4-6 members. They are expected to remove between 400-800 cubic yards of debris annually, an amount that could fill as many as 53 dump trucks.

 

With this new clean-up team in action, the Port continues to create ways of making our lake and river more attractive, active, and inviting for everyone.

 

 

 

http://www.portofcleveland.com/?cat=11

I like.  Hopefully this will make the river much more pleasant to look at.

A new generation of putzfrau!

A new generation of putzfrau!

 

Why that boat isn't put up on a pedestal for public display/education, I'll never know.

Awesome!

 

Also, while not as glamorous as the Chicago plan above, here's the latest from the Motor City on Belle Isle.

 

http://www.freep.com/article/20120912/NEWS01/120912033/belle-isle-state-park-snyder-bing?odyssey=obinsite

 

 

Cleveland mayor proposes one development team for lakefront

Published: Tuesday, September 18, 2012, 2:48 PM    Updated: Tuesday, September 18, 2012, 6:14 PM

By Laura Johnston, The Plain Dealer

CLEVELAND, Ohio --

 

Mayor Frank Jackson proposed Tuesday to fast-track his vision for a bustling downtown lakefront, where Clevelanders could board a charter boat, grab a bite, report to work and even make a home.

 

Rather than allow disparate developers to build the project piecemeal over numerous years, Jackson wants one firm -- or perhaps a partnership -- to dream up a blend of businesses, apartments, paths and parks, then quickly transform the concept into reality.

 

"We're not looking at a hodgepodge of project upon project," Jackson said in a phone interview. "We're looking at a comprehensive approach. It's our way of guaranteeing the lakefront plan."

 

To help him choose the right developer, Jackson said he is seeking advice from a seven-member panel of community and business leaders. Representatives from Cuyahoga County government, the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority, Greater Cleveland Partnership, Presidents Council, Cleveland Browns, Great Lakes Science Center and Rock and Roll Hall of Fame will help draft a formal request for proposals and review the ideas as they stream in.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/09/cleveland_mayor_proposes_one_d.html

I think this is great news for the Lakefront. I don't know what this means for the political side of the project, seems like it increases viability, but to me the best difference will be that there will be one overall design for this district which has the ability to tie things together quite well, rather than be unrelated. Good news!

Unfortunately, I like the idea of "piecemealing" the lakefront together with several different projects.  I can't stand when Crocker Park"esqe" developments are done in the city as they tend to be silver bullet projects that either don't live up to expectations, or lose their glamour after a couple years.  Throwing a ton of residential and commercial space at a market in short time in my opinion is not good.  The only place I can see that possibly working is on the aprking lots around E 4th as that area has seen growth and prosperity, and has set roots.  It has momentum.  The lakefront is not on bit connected to the rest of the city, and has minimal momentum.  It needs time to grow slowly and organically, and the city needs to grow around it.  Infrastructure improvements need done over time as the lakefront grows.  E 4th would be a mess right now if 15 restaurants and 500 rental units opened up all at once in 2003 versus the way it grew over the past ten years.  Same with the WHD.  As E 4th developed, the city adapted with infrastructure improvements, and the developer catered to market demands as they saw fit. 

Not sure what it means but WKYC is reporting that Jimmy Haslam will meet with Cleveland city council on Wednesday. It is described as a meet and greet.  Just guessing but I am sure CBS will be discussed.  Haslam has said he would like to create a better fan experience at the stadium. That might include being involved with lakefront development.