The lakefront bikeway already runs from E. 55th to Gordon Park (and actually all the way to Collinwood,) and I'd love to see that improved and integrated into a bigger lakefront trail system

The lakefront bikeway already runs from E. 55th to Gordon Park (and actually all the way to Collinwood,) and I'd love to see that improved and integrated into a bigger lakefront trail system

 

Yes I'm definitely thinking something more than the bike way that really is just signage along a pot hole filled N Marginal Road.  Fortunately there is a TLCI planning process going on right now to improve the Marginal Roads from East 9th out to Gordon Park, transforming them more into greenways. 

Steven Litt ‏@steven_litt  8m8 minutes ago

Cool video shows fly-by of design for #CLEVELAND lakefront ped bridge: http://bit.ly/1N79D5P  @cleveLANDstudio

The terminus is much improved.  I wish there is a better choice than chain link  as a protective barrier

Looks like the video has been pulled.

 

I did see at least one bench on the bridge.  Hopefully they can figure out a way to add a few more.

The terminus is much improved.  I wish there is a better choice than chain link  as a protective barrier

 

Darn. Can you explain how the terminus is better?

The video is still there for me. But I grabbed a couple just in case. The terminus is not as cluttered and less 'rampish'. I am still disappointed this has been delayed. They keep saying until 2017. Does that mean construction will end or begin there...idk. I am looking for someone to blame...

Thanks for posting.

 

The grass/trees areas surrounding the Rock Hall and Science Center looks even more useless here. I sincerely hope there's some bright minds working on how to better integrate these assets.

I find it a tad bit surprising that they didn't have the new Hilton rendered in there for that video. It would have given a much better representation of the city view + the final bridge project, as it'll appear fairly massive from those angles.

The termination point definitely looks better. I'm still opposed to its location (I would rather it connect to the top of the GLSC garage and continue the walkway directly to the new developments north of First Energy Stadium). With the termination point between GLSC and RRHoF, I think they need to do some serious work over there. The pointless grassy fields need to be developed and/or converted into urban plazas/gardens. It's probably unlikely, but I wish someone would develop the field in front of the GLSC and move the wind turbine elsewhere.

The termination point definitely looks better. I'm still opposed to its location (I would rather it connect to the top of the GLSC garage and continue the walkway directly to the new developments north of First Energy Stadium). With the termination point between GLSC and RRHoF, I think they need to do some serious work over there. The pointless grassy fields need to be developed and/or converted into urban plazas/gardens. It's probably unlikely, but I wish someone would develop the field in front of the GLSC and move the wind turbine elsewhere.

 

This is an immensely important issue, yet it gets close to zero media attention. Whatever the criticism of Baltimore's Inner Harbor, I remember it having a very good and sensible pedestrian access. Here we have virtually no coherence between our greatest attractions.

 

I'd like to hear at least some mention that city planners have something in mind. The closest thing I can recall is that some spokespersons at the Rock Hall or Science Center mentioned being excited about improvements in connectivity, but that can mean anything. The Rock Hall and GLSC need to bring some of their content outside. It will enliven the worthless dead zones and help bring people inside.

 

Anyone else get the idea that all of the reliance is on Pace? It's pretty sad that Cleveland always seems so dependent on private developers to look out for the public interest.

The video is still there for me. But I grabbed a couple just in case. The terminus is not as cluttered and less 'rampish'. I am still disappointed this has been delayed. They keep saying until 2017. Does that mean construction will end or begin there...idk. I am looking for someone to blame...

 

 

Why do you keep posting about this? Why do you need to blame someone? They are taking an extra year. So what? The original timeline was unrealistic and now they are taking extra time to do it right. This is going to happen and happen correctly.  It's like you haven't bothered to read the posted articles about this at all. The finish date was 2016, now it's 2017. It's very clear. You can stop staying up nights worrying.

^Huh :wtf:

I was responding to surf's post...and who are you?

The terminus is much improved.  I wish there is a better choice than chain link  as a protective barrier

 

Darn. Can you explain how the terminus is better?

 

IMO the terminus no longer dumps you onto an arbitrary point along the street that makes no connection to either the RRHOF or GLSC.  Now the circular path has a landing with an overlook of the North Coast Harbor as well as 2 staircases that you may take either in the direction of the RRHOF or GLSC.  The ramp down leads in the direction of FirstEnergy Stadium..  That is what I meant by much improved

Regarding the bridge: I am definitely bummed about this. I don't share the optimism that this is a good thing. Delays are rarely a good thing. The passion changes, costs always go up and some will use it as a political football. We were that close. I put most of the blame on the new county leadership who I don't believe has the same understanding of how vital downtown Cleveland is to the region. Say what you want about Fitzgerald but he 'got' downtown. I would move forward with it as is, if it takes another 6 months so be it. At least it would be underway.

 

 

^^  You posted this last week.  Then you posted the about the bridge today. I'm saying it sounds like you didn't read the articles on the bridge delay, or you would realize this is a good thing because they are taking the extra time to do it right. And the completion date has been clearly stated as 2017.  You said you blame the "new county leadership".  Why? They obviously get how important this bridge is and the extra time is meant to complete it properly while adhering to the original design. Again, as clearly stated in the article.  There is no one to "blame" because there is nothing being done wrong.  As far as starting construction because "at least it would be underway", you don't just start something just to "move forward" with it "as is" and hope for the best.  No architect, contractor, design firm or construction company works that way.

The county is managing the project. And it has yet to be proven if the delay 'is a good thing'. We will see. It is my opinion that the county administration changeover may have caused a delay in the project. Cuyahoga County Public Works Director Bonnie Teeuwen who successfully managed various projects during her four years including the county building consolidation, convention center, medical mart and the on time-on budget Hilton hotel was replaced during the changeover. Her job was posted to the county website before she finally resigned. It is my opinion this may have caused a delay in the project. Litt's article which you draw all of your information from was an 'opinion' piece, it is his view of the situation. And yes he says completion has been pushed back to 2017. 2017 is 12 months long. I was wondering, if it is OK with you would that be the first part of 2017 or closer to 2018. With a project so close to groundbreaking a year or more delay can leave open questions as to the current management in place.

The county is managing the project. And it has yet to be proven if the delay 'is a good thing'. We will see. It is my opinion that the county administration changeover may have caused a delay in the project. Cuyahoga County Public Works Director Bonnie Teeuwen who successfully managed various projects during her four years including the county building consolidation, convention center, medical mart and the on time-on budget Hilton hotel was replaced during the changeover. Her job was posted to the county website before she finally resigned. It is my opinion this may have caused a delay in the project. Litt's article which you draw all of your information from was an 'opinion' piece, it is his view of the situation. And yes he says completion has been pushed back to 2017. 2017 is 12 months long. I was wondering, if it is OK with you would that be the first part of 2017 or closer to 2018. With a project so close to groundbreaking a year or more delay can leave open questions as to the current management in place.

 

Actually, I'm not getting my information from Litt's "opinion" piece in the PD. I'm getting it from the Crain's Cleveland article from March 17 which was posted with a link here on UO on March 18.  In the Crain's article, those involved in the project who were interviewed all mentioned the delay as a good thing so the project can be done correctly and without compromise.  The original 2016 deadline was untenable and unrealistic.

Lots of pics....

 

A new lakefront plan aiming for better neighborhood connections is refreshingly pragmatic (commentary)

By Steven Litt, The Plain Dealer

on March 25, 2015 at 3:46 PM, updated March 28, 2015 at 7:08 AM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Clevelanders have long yearned for a quick fix that would transform the city's tough, ugly and hard-to-reach lakefront into something more usable, enjoyable and beautiful.

 

The reality is that without boatloads of money and political willpower, it won't be possible to relocate or deck over the railroads and highways that wall off city neighborhoods from Lake Erie with a quarter-mile gray zone of concrete and steel.

 

In that context, a new lakefront planning effort, which examines the potential for incremental improvements along four miles of lakefront from downtown east to Gordon Park and Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, is refreshingly pragmatic.

 

MORE:

http://www.cleveland.com/architecture/index.ssf/2015/03/an_emerging_lakefront_plan_for.html

Lots of pics....

 

A new lakefront plan aiming for better neighborhood connections is refreshingly pragmatic (commentary)

By Steven Litt, The Plain Dealer

on March 25, 2015 at 3:46 PM, updated March 28, 2015 at 7:08 AM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Clevelanders have long yearned for a quick fix that would transform the city's tough, ugly and hard-to-reach lakefront into something more usable, enjoyable and beautiful.

 

The reality is that without boatloads of money and political willpower, it won't be possible to relocate or deck over the railroads and highways that wall off city neighborhoods from Lake Erie with a quarter-mile gray zone of concrete and steel.

 

In that context, a new lakefront planning effort, which examines the potential for incremental improvements along four miles of lakefront from downtown east to Gordon Park and Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, is refreshingly pragmatic.

 

MORE:

http://www.cleveland.com/architecture/index.ssf/2015/03/an_emerging_lakefront_plan_for.html

 

Reading the part that states, "Planners wanted to encircle Burke Lakefront Airport with a walking trail, but found that may not be feasible due to rules imposed by the FAA..." makes me wanna scream that you cement "connections" with DEVELOPMENT, not with contrived "trails," which we've been doing left and right forever.

 

I think everybody knows that the airport has to be closed. Surely everyone, regardless of whether they'll say it or not, knows that?

If by "has to" you mean "should" then sure.  However there are realities to Burke that will keep it an airport for a good long long while, and why they're talking about a walking trail instead of developing the place.

The poor lakefront planning Cleveland went through is a tough one to rectify.  What gets me is that all that land is man made.    The park systems that lined Marginal Road

once sloped directly to Lake Erie.  Yes the freeway was poorly placed but I believe development is the major culprit.  One of those developments was The Terminal Tower. If the The Van Sweringen Brothers hadn't gone against the original plan for a grand train station at the northern end of the malls we would have had a direct connection that crossed the railroad tracks below to the lake.  Instead  The Terminal Tower caused more wasted land along the lakefront when that site was excavated.

 

The freeway probably could have been rethought and still could along the same concept of slowed down 45 highway similar to Chicago.  Until the barrier of the highway is truly recognized as a problem and the closure of Burke many of these ideas are bandaids. 

 

So i pose the question.  If you had a completely blank slate how would you redesign the lakefront of Cleveland?

The lakefront is not the best place for a train station -- notably because trains had to cross the navigable river only a few feet above it causing congestion for river and rail traffic alike. It's why the New York Central built a belt line around the south side of the city in 1911 and why the Van Sweringens made sure their western entrance into Cleveland Union Terminal was high enough cross the river without a movable bridge. Putting a train station on Public Square -- the transit hub since the 1860s -- was the ideal location for fostering the utmost in intermodal connectivity. It would take at least $300 million to $500 million to remove the remaining rail traffic (except what's bound to/from the port) from the lakefront. The freight could be bypassed on the former NKP bridge that's below the Inner Belt and the passenger service could be routed through Tower City. No one has that kind of money since America is such an impoverished country.... ;)

If by "has to" you mean "should" then sure.  However there are realities to Burke that will keep it an airport for a good long long while, and why they're talking about a walking trail instead of developing the place.

 

Well as long as we are deluding ourselves, why don't we plan the biggest most expensive walking trail that has ever been done... go big or go home. All in the name of waste!

 

edit: not directed at you, as I'm also well-aware of the contingent that considers Burke A, a good use of real estate, and B, a worthwhile fiscal drain.

The lakefront is not the best place for a train station -- notably because trains had to cross the navigable river only a few feet above it causing congestion for river and rail traffic alike. It's why the New York Central built a belt line around the south side of the city in 1911 and why the Van Sweringens made sure their western entrance into Cleveland Union Terminal was high enough cross the river without a movable bridge. Putting a train station on Public Square -- the transit hub since the 1860s -- was the ideal location for fostering the utmost in intermodal connectivity. It would take at least $300 million to $500 million to remove the remaining rail traffic (except what's bound to/from the port) from the lakefront. The freight could be bypassed on the former NKP bridge that's below the Inner Belt and the passenger service could be routed through Tower City. No one has that kind of money since America is such an impoverished country.... ;)

 

What about that southern route you've mentioned before, routing the traffic through Berea then back up into Collinwood?

In Southern California we have trains and busy roadways along much of the shoreline. Their mere existence doesn't prevent people from getting to the ocean.

 

There surely must be workarounds to these issues in Cleveland that shouldn't require multiple billions of dollars.

 

In Cleveland it's not just the trains and the cars blocking access, but rather the entire identity of the waterfront is at issue. The lakefront is schizophrenic; chaotic; lacking in order; underutilized; and numerous other things that are the antithesis to being an alluring space.

What about that southern route you've mentioned before, routing the traffic through Berea then back up into Collinwood?

 

Of that $500 million figure, a lakefront bypass for freight would eat up roughly half of that.

 

And yes, you have tracks along the Pacific coast north of San Diego. But of the roughly 40-50 trains a day you have, all but two or three are short, speedy passenger trains. Your few freight trains are usually limited to the overnight hours. In Cleveland, we have 80-90 trains a day along our lakefront. And only four are short, speedy passenger trains (they pause here in the overnight hours!). The rest are 1- to 2-mile-long freight trains, some with hazardous/flammable shipments lumbering by at 20-30 mph, with each of their rail cars weighing up to 125-tons, that's a very different animal. Both rail lines, either along the Pacific or Lake Erie, can be bridged and otherwise have their nuisance levels mitigated. But one rail corridor will clearly require more funding and and mitigation -- Cleveland's.

What about that southern route you've mentioned before, routing the traffic through Berea then back up into Collinwood?

 

Of that $500 million figure, a lakefront bypass for freight would eat up roughly half of that.

 

And yes, you have tracks along the Pacific coast north of San Diego. But of the roughly 40-50 trains a day you have, all but two or three are short, speedy passenger trains. Your few freight trains are usually limited to the overnight hours. In Cleveland, we have 80-90 trains a day along our lakefront. And only four are short, speedy passenger trains (they pause here in the overnight hours!). The rest are 1- to 2-mile-long freight trains, some with hazardous/flammable shipments lumbering by at 20-30 mph, with each of their rail cars weighing up to 125-tons, that's a very different animal. Both rail lines, either along the Pacific or Lake Erie, can be bridged and otherwise have their nuisance levels mitigated. But one rail corridor will clearly require more funding and and mitigation -- Cleveland's.

 

One point, those passenger trains in San Diego are going at an extreme rate of speed. Which makes them a lot scarier to be around. If given a choice, I would much prefer proximity to a lumbering 30 mph train filled with flammable whatever vs. the Pacific Sunliner passenger train, which seems to go through the beach towns at 98 mph.

 

But my point wasn't as much about the trains, but what's on each side of the tracks. If the Shoreway and rail line disappeared tomorrow, that doesn't magically do anything. The lakefront is still a mess.

If by "has to" you mean "should" then sure.  However there are realities to Burke that will keep it an airport for a good long long while, and why they're talking about a walking trail instead of developing the place.

 

Well as long as we are deluding ourselves, why don't we plan the biggest most expensive walking trail that has ever been done... go big or go home. All in the name of waste!

 

edit: not directed at you, as I'm also well-aware of the contingent that considers Burke A, a good use of real estate, and B, a worthwhile fiscal drain.

 

The obsession with closing Burke when there is more than enough developable lakefront land without it is mind boggling to me. It's not the airport (on a landfill, mind you) that's the biggest impediment to lakefront development.

^I wholeheartedly agree!

Yeah, I've always thought it was funny that people think Burke is the main thing blocking lakefront development, when we still haven't been able to develop any of the currently available lakefront land.

 

On a semi-related note, what is the feasibility of the Port moving? Currently the Port sits on the most valuable (and convenient) lakefront land, not Burke. I know it's been proposed before in Cleveland, but what is the actual feasibility of that happening? I'd imagine it would be possible to create more land off of the Port land on Whiskey Island, and just move all the Port operations there. I've heard the northeast corner of Burke suggested, but I'd imagine it would be more difficult to establish a rail connection there.

I thought I remembered hearing it would be upwards of a billion dollars to move the port and that it just isn't likely to happen, at least in any timeframe that matters.

 

There's still a ton of developable waterfront land that we should be pushing to maximize. Cleveland has a long history of making awful use of prime land. Just look how much "greenspace" there is that has no discernible use. Look how much of the developed lakefront is useless grass. Look how wide and overscaled the roads are in most of Downtown. The Mall, scenic as it may be, is absolutely gigantic and scaled for a much larger city than Cleveland is or has ever been. Cleveland needs better land usage patterns and the Lakefront is a prime place to start.

 

We need to look at precedents such as Mission Bay in San Francisco or False Creek in Vancouver and model our development patterns on successful places as much as possible. You could house tens of thousands of people along the entirety of the lakefront and riverfront, but not with that way we use land currently.

^ I always preferred everything you said to the cramped appearance of Cincinnati.  I love the greenspace, the open roads, Public Square, and the Mall.

Those things are terrible for pedestrians though. And that's what we're trying to build for the future. Cincinnati is cramped, and that makes it so much more human scaled. The Mall in Cleveland is a miserable place to be unless it's during an event where it's crowded. Public Square might have some of this same problem but it appears it'll be broken down enough that this should be kept to a minimum.

 

Large, wide open roads reduce the connection between the two sides of the street resulting in a much less coherent space. It also requires taller buildings to feel comfortable, something that Cleveland isn't exactly rife with. Once you leave the main cluster the roads are just too big.

 

There are almost no examples of cities designed and laid out in the manner Cleveland is that are successful of creating pedestrian scaled environments. Chicago does this in some areas but it has the benefit of being significantly larger than Cleveland. Paris has some of the same attributes but combats this with incredibly well done ground level architecture and much more intimate settings once you leave the main arteries. Cleveland doesn't do that very well. Almost every road is larger than it needs to be.

 

Too much greenspace is a characteristic of the modernist movement and urban renewal. It is uncomfortable, has no real merit when it comes to functionality of space, and feels more like a series of private yards than public space because that's how it was designed. Open space in cities doesn't work in the quantity and lack of quality found in most of Cleveland's open spaces.

 

Cleveland was designed as a city that would eventually hit several million people. It never even toyed with that population and now it's just an overly designed city that has too much surface infrastructure than will ever be necessary. We need to design our new development to combat this quality otherwise it'll feel vast and empty like many parts still do.

We need to look at precedents such as Mission Bay in San Francisco or False Creek in Vancouver and model our development patterns on successful places as much as possible. You could house tens of thousands of people along the entirety of the lakefront and riverfront, but not with that way we use land currently.

 

I agree but keep in mind, Cleveland's waterfront has a history of heavy industry.  Going away from that is much more difficult than in places like you mentioned

How? Those places I mentioned were also heavily industrial locations.

The Mall in Cleveland is a miserable place to be unless it's during an event where it's crowded.

 

Agree with most of your points except this one.  The bluff overlooking the lake on Mall B is probably one of my favorite spots in the City.  When the weather's nice I'm out there a couple times a week to spend some time.  As a downtown dweller, I've begun to see the Mall function well for more people.  It's a favorite for people with dogs and people who use it for some kind of athletic activity - whether it be playing catch or sprinting up and down to train.

I assume you learned in school how bad Cleveland was laid out.  To each his own I guess.

^^I'll admit I haven't spent much time at all since the Mall was redone with the convention center. So its current layout may be more conducive to pedestrian activity than I realized in my handful of times since it was redone. Before the convention center I never enjoyed being in the Mall due to its vast scale and lack of programming or amenities.

 

I learned about Cleveland's problems with pedestrian scaling by experiencing Cleveland's problems with pedestrian scaling. It's not hard to understand how uncomfortable a lot of the roads are by just standing on the sidewalk looking across 80 feet of traffic lanes. When walking along a block and 1/3 of that block is a corner that was not built upon and is instead a big patch of grass better suited for a suburban office park, it's not hard to understand how underutilized that space is. When walking along a big blank wall from a building built post WWII it's frustrating to know it replaced something with ground level activity. There are entire blocks that are devoid of street life in Cleveland and that's not a rare occurrence.

 

Cleveland has good bones, but we need to be smart about how we build in order to undo mistakes from the past.

Just a point about pedestrian scaling.  I was in New York recently and found that crossing the big longitudinal streets in Manhattan was probably worse than getting across any of our big streets in Cleveland.  Carnegie, 9th, Superior, and St. Clair are probably much too big for a comfortable pedestrian crossing but 1st, 3rd, and 6th in NY were also pedestrian nightmares - and more hectic.  So, having tall buildings and more people doesn't really lessen the impact of crossing major thoroughfares.  And it isn't a problem unique to Cleveland.  This was probably more a function of the competing interest of automobiles than "poor planning."  Well....those 2 aren't mutually exclusive, I guess.

^I actually almost used the avenues in NYC as an example of the problems of excessive road width. There is a point where nothing you can do helps make them comfortable to cross, but thankfully most of Cleveland's biggest roads aren't quite as wide as the avenues in Manhattan.

I've been hearing grumblings about FirstEnergy's Lakefront power plant shutting down. Unless they've flip flopped and decided not to close it, how much potential is there for reusing the land or maybe even the plant itself (like Baltimore's Pratt Street Power Plant)? Or will the land be too contaminated to do anything beyond turning it into a big field?

Look how wide and overscaled the roads are in most of Downtown.

 

This would be quite convenient to install streetcars (again).

That's actually one of the best ways to reduce the perceived scale of a big ROW. By having dedicated transit lines that are separated in some manner you can essentially create two one way roads with a transit median which greatly reduces crossing lengths and gives people a point of refuge in the middle. We kind of get a little bit of this happening on Euclid. It feels like a much more intimate, human street than it did before the Healthline.

Cleveland's streets were designed to be wide at the outset, as Cleveland was laid out during an era when wide streets were an integral part of a urban design theme espoused by the Habsburgs in European cities in the late 1700s and early 1800s. These grand boulevards were added to already developed parts of Paris, Buda and Pest, requiring much demolition to create the streets, as well as the landscaping, grand palaces, cathedrals and public parks. Nothing was demolished in Cleveland to create its wide streets. They were not created to accommodate more cars. Our wide streets predated the rise of the car by more than a century.

Lots of pics....

 

A new lakefront plan aiming for better neighborhood connections is refreshingly pragmatic (commentary)

By Steven Litt, The Plain Dealer

on March 25, 2015 at 3:46 PM, updated March 28, 2015 at 7:08 AM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Clevelanders have long yearned for a quick fix that would transform the city's tough, ugly and hard-to-reach lakefront into something more usable, enjoyable and beautiful.

 

The reality is that without boatloads of money and political willpower, it won't be possible to relocate or deck over the railroads and highways that wall off city neighborhoods from Lake Erie with a quarter-mile gray zone of concrete and steel.

 

In that context, a new lakefront planning effort, which examines the potential for incremental improvements along four miles of lakefront from downtown east to Gordon Park and Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, is refreshingly pragmatic.

 

MORE:

http://www.cleveland.com/architecture/index.ssf/2015/03/an_emerging_lakefront_plan_for.html

 

Reading the part that states, "Planners wanted to encircle Burke Lakefront Airport with a walking trail, but found that may not be feasible due to rules imposed by the FAA..." makes me wanna scream that you cement "connections" with DEVELOPMENT, not with contrived "trails," which we've been doing left and right forever.

 

I think everybody knows that the airport has to be closed. Surely everyone, regardless of whether they'll say it or not, knows that?

 

Litt is talking about a simple Lakefront plan and quickly it expands to Burke closing.

 

I have no beef with closing Burke but who administers the land after closing? The city of Cleveland?  I think that would be a disaster. The city has trouble keeping much smaller parcels of land in good shape and I could see it as another abandoned albatross on the city's neck.

 

Has any developer come forward about building something there? I mean it's not like it's a hidden discussion. Yet no one I heard of has expressed interest in building anything there.

 

The only way I would let Burke go is if a significant part of it was given to the Metroparks. Even then, I don't know that kind of cleanup costs that would entail.

 

I know this is the Lakefront thread but I think the biggest land issue with the city land use is not Burke...it's the AM steel plant. I know it would take decades but it would be great to reclaim the valley south of downtown how Pittsburgh has done with it's riverfronts. They valley is such a unique and beautiful asset for a "Midwestern" city when you get down to the National Park.

The city has enough problems trying to fill in neglected areas.  You're right, no one is clamoring to build anything on Burke.  Where would it come from?

 

Burke has millions of dollars of federal investment that have not depreciated/lived out it's useful life expectancy, and that is why no one is talking about it. Not for the reasons being freaked out about above. Has it really been so long since we've had this conversation? Feels like yesterday, heh.

Long-time lurker and noticed this wasn't shared here, yet. Can't share the link since my account is new, so below is the whole story.

 

 

IndyCar: Cleveland to return?

 

IndyCar fans have been clamoring for a return to Cleveland and the racy runways of Burke Lakefront Airport and, suddenly, there appears to be hope.

Gene Haskett, who ran the Cleveland race from 1983 to ’92, was approached by a major company a few months ago wondering if he’d be interested in bringing back Indy cars to Lake Erie if they provided title sponsorship.

 

“I told them I had no interest in being the promoter but I would call Roger Penske for them and see if he had any interest,” related Haskett over the weekend at St. Petersburg. “I talked to Roger and he said ‘no’ because of his commitment to Detroit but that I needed to talk to (Hulman & Company CEO) Mark Miles.

“So then I called the old airport commissioner, Mike Barth, to see if he could help with the Federal Aviation Authority (Burke has to be shut down from Friday night to Sunday night for the race) and he got some positive news from them.

 

“I’d love to see Cleveland come back, as would all the fans.”

 

According to Miles, it’s on the table.

 

“We very much want to go back to Cleveland if we can find a proper date,” said the IndyCar boss after meeting with Mike Lanigan and Haskett during the IndyCar season opener. “We want Mike as the promoter and we should know if it’s feasible in a month or so.”

 

Lanigan, a longtime IndyCar sponsor/owner who co-owns RLL Racing with Bobby Rahal and David Letterman, promoted Cleveland’s last Champ Car show in 2007 and always said he’d go back in a heartbeat if he could land a sponsor.

 

“Absolutely I’m interested if we can get a good title sponsor and I think Mark is very serious about getting to Cleveland,” said Lanigan, who also promoted Houston’s street race in Champ Car (2006 and ’07) and IndyCar (2013 and ’14). “We all know what a great race it always was and I think it could be again.”

 

 

Found the link:

http://www.racer.com/indycar/item/115015-indycar-cleveland-to-return

Welcome, Greenman!