If you (SixthCity) are going to b!tch about an undeveloped lakefront, could you at least wait until the big bad bogeyman "government" actually screws it up?

 

What more evidence do you need that government mismanagement has continually screwed up the lakefront?

 

 

What more evidence do you need that government mismanagement has continually screwed up the lakefront?

 

 

Seems the private sector did that. When the public sector got involved (North Coast Harbor, Lakefront bikeway, Wendy Park, etc), we started giving the lakefront back to the people. Both the private and public sector have done good and bad things with our lakefront over the centuries, so if you care that much about it, then get involved. You help shape the process. If you limit your input to forums such as this, then the process shapes you.

^ I'm actively involved in redeveloping property in the urban core of Cleveland - my money's where my mouth is.  Are you?

Wow, are we going to start comparing the size of our schlongs next?

 

Through the value of my knowledge and the power of my words and ideas, I've caused, shaped or stopped the investment of hundreds of millions of dollars over the past 30 years in Cleveland, the rest of the state and even outside of Ohio.  Why does that matter??

Wow, are we going to start comparing the size of our schlongs next?

 

Through the value of my knowledge and the power of my words and ideas, I've caused, shaped or stopped the investment of hundreds of millions of dollars over the past 30 years in Cleveland, the rest of the state and even outside of Ohio.  Why does that matter??

 

No.  That was said in response to this:

 

so if you care that much about it, then get involved. You help shape the process. If you limit your input to forums such as this, then the process shapes you.

 

I won't be accused of being a basement dweller forum kvetcher (although 90% of forum activity is kvetching) and neither can you.  Good.

 

Edit: Active involvement in the process or not, the landmarking of the Cod is still a very bad idea.

Investing in the city doesn't mean being you've been part of a public process to decide the future of the lakefront -- which is a public good. It's means a self-interested party has made a decision about a public good. That doesn't mean that the interested party represents a consensus of how best to use it. If, through a public process, it is deemed by consensus that Geis' development is the best use of that site, then so be it. If the public consensus is that the USS Cod should stay where it is, then so be it. Some of us may not like it, but I can live with that decision being the result of the will of the people rather than the will of self-interested party who doesn't necessarily act in the public's interest.

 

Sorry, but different public-sector value judgments exist for different properties, and the lakefront is and should be subject to the utmost public scrutiny. It literally goes with the territory.

 

Edit: Active involvement in the process or not, the landmarking of the Cod is still a very bad idea.

 

And it may well be deemed as such, based on the public input received through the appropriate venues -- which exist for all people, regardless of means.

I've been saying for years that the Cod should be moved closer to North Coast Harbor so that it can be better integrated with the other lakefront attractions. Below is the USS Torsk museum ship at Baltimore's Inner Harbor which is docked right across from the National Aquarium. I remember seeing this for the first time and wishing the Cod was similarly situated near the Rock Hall. I especially don't like how the Cod site is surrounded by a barbed wire fence.

 

North Coast Harbor seems like a great idea. 

 

Plus it frees up the side of my Burke Lakefront parking lot to Midrise Condo's idea to give some water access.

^ KJP[/member] I hear ya but I don't think that's a full picture of what's going on here.

 

Here are the facts as I understand them:  The City owns the land that the Cod is moored to.  The Cod presumably has a leasing agreement with the City which is essentially acting as a landowner/landlord in this situation.  They have talked about redeveloping this property and have developers interested in doing so.  The City as the owner has the right to dispose of their property.

 

Normally, if a tenant wants to locate themselves in a spot they have to negotiate the terms of their lease - the Cod has presumably done this with the City.  The terms, duration, and price of the lease will be determined by the value calculated by the tenant.

 

So if the Cod has a year lease and are at risk of getting booted for a development project, then so be it - they should have gotten a longer lease.  And the City retains the ability to do this.

 

What the Cod is now attempting to do is to give itself a near perpetual lease for free by landmarking itself.  Now, instead of the leaseholder, landowner, and possible future developer negotiating the use of the property, we have a 3rd party commission who is tasked with historic preservation making the ultimate decision with which it has a very strong veto power.  That's not an efficient process at the very least - nor is it very democratic at all.

 

Furthermore, if the City is interested in public access to the waterfront, which I'm sure it is, then it can put that into the deal with the developer.  That seems to have more democratic input than punting the decision to the Landmark Commission.  Further still, this decision does not grant public access to the lakefront - quite the opposite!  It just determines that the Cod will remain where it is, which hardly gives public access to the lake at all.

 

I just don't see this as an egalitarian provision of a public good here.  This is a self interested party using government to give itself a near perpetual use of land which doesn't appear to benefit the public much at all.  It benefits the interested party immensely however.

 

If we are really interested in the provision of a public good, then requiring the developer to maintain access to the water in its development is by far the best route.  This can easily be done during the land deal.  We have done it successfully with FEB, the Lakefront Plan, the towpath on Scranton Penn., etc.  There is nothing to suggest the City's interest would change here.  But landmarking the Cod doesn't do that, not even close.  It just requires that a huge ship remains on the water's edge.  Who does that benefit?

 

Edit: If there are any facts that I've gotten wrong - I hope someone would correct me.

Has the city gone through an RFP process to award site control to a developer? I don't remember if the city had. If not, why not? Geis' interest was made public perhaps two years ago. Are those consistent with city-generated long-range use plans for that portion of the lakefront? I honestly don't recall. If there has been an RFP and Geis won the award, then someone in the Landmarks Commission (or elsewhere) is opening the city up to a nice juicy lawsuit.

 

And as a matter of common-as-anywhere-the-in-the-world City Hall politics, who's associated with the USS Cod who has greater influence with the mayor than Fred Geis??

Has the city gone through an RFP process to award site control to a developer? I don't remember if the city had. If not, why not? Geis' interest was made public perhaps two years ago. Are those consistent with city-generated long-range use plans for that portion of the lakefront? I honestly don't recall. If there has been an RFP and Geis won the award, then someone in the Landmarks Commission (or elsewhere) is opening the city up to a nice juicy lawsuit.

 

Not entirely sure but to my knowledge, Geis only had an option.  Off the top of my head, I would think that required an RFP but I'm not sure.  The bidding process may have come and gone but I don't recall either.

 

And as a matter of common-as-anywhere-the-in-the-world City Hall politics, who's associated with the USS Cod who has greater influence with the mayor than Fred Geis??

 

From the article:

After an hour-long discussion, the Cleveland Landmarks Commission voted 8-to-1 in favor of landmarking the Cod, which is docked off North Marginal Road just west of Burke Lakefront Airport. The decision now heads to Cleveland City Council, which will have to decide whether to override objections from city administrators.

 

This is the problem in a nutshell.  The Landmarks Commission is essentially in charge of voting to give itself more reach.  It will be interesting to see how this happens in Council but Cimperman is on board with the landmark status and I expect the rest of Council to probably fall in behind him.

 

I think Geis still has a lot of influence with the Mayor hence the objections by City administrators.  But this is going to hinge on Geis' influence with Council.

 

I, like you, want public access to the water.  But keeping the Cod where it is will surely inhibit, not help that.

^I'm always empathetic to the cause of veterans who fought and often died for the country, and to the extent the Cod symbolizes this, more power to it.  But it just seems that Cimperman and the Landmarks commission have needlessly thrown down the gauntlet when cooler heads and negotiations behind the scenes would have been more productive.  I am absolutely certain there are numerous places along the Lake and even the river (hello dreary/boring Settler's Landing) where the Cod could be placed that would be both visible and accessible (via, say, the WFL), and that these options have not fully been explored before Cimperman/CLC went off down this inflammatory landmark status road. 

 

This is shades of the dark Cleveland era of political grandstanding over high profile projects where the end result would be nothing gets achieved other than elevated blood pressures for all parties concerned, especially a hopeful electorate.  That we've come a long way since those bad old days is quietly evident by the new bricks 'n mortar excitement all over downtown and in many neighborhoods.  Cimperman generally is a decent pol who seems to want to do the right thing but, as seen in this case, isn't above grandstanding... (those old enough to recall his pledge, after the Flats teen/young men drownings and underage liquor sales there in the late 1990s/early 2000s, to build high fences around all the riverfront clubs, know what I mean -- and the Flats East Bank soon died out not long after Joe's chest thumping).  This Cod episode sees Cimperman morphing back into his grenade-tossing worst mode, which is surely not welcome to those who desire progress.

 

About the only good news I see in this potential mess is that Geis has been publicly quiet to this point.  One of the truly great things about Frank Jackson that will become his legacy once he calls it quits is his ability to get conflicting parties together behind closed doors to get things done.  The evidence of this is sparkling all over downtown, starting with the new Convention Center... Hopefully this will happen again with the Lakefront project.  I've already communicated  my wishes with people on the ground who will oppose Council moving forward with the CLC's radical move.  If opponents are not successful, I'd like to think Frank's veto pen awaits. 

We'll see what happens. I don't have an opinion on what the outcome is (I can find benefits from both outcomes). I thought that blame was being assigned without enough information first.

We'll see what happens. I don't have an opinion on what the outcome is (I can find benefits from both outcomes). I thought that blame was being assigned without enough information first.

 

Love ya buddy. <3

Right back at ya.

That was the most civil-yet-heated back-and-forth I have seen on this forum. Touche folks! Can you guys lead a seminar for the Republican party?  :roll:

^I'm always empathetic to the cause of veterans who fought and often died for the country, and to the extent the Cod symbolizes this, more power to it.  But it just seems that Cimperman and the Landmarks commission have needlessly thrown down the gauntlet when cooler heads and negotiations behind the scenes would have been more productive.  I am absolutely certain there are numerous places along the Lake and even the river (hello dreary/boring Settler's Landing) where the Cod could be placed that would be both visible and accessible (via, say, the WFL), and that these options have not fully been explored before Cimperman/CLC went off down this inflammatory landmark status road. 

 

This is shades of the dark Cleveland era of political grandstanding over high profile projects where the end result would be nothing gets achieved other than elevated blood pressures for all parties concerned, especially a hopeful electorate.  That we've come a long way since those bad old days is quietly evident by the new bricks 'n mortar excitement all over downtown and in many neighborhoods.  Cimperman generally is a decent pol who seems to want to do the right thing but, as seen in this case, isn't above grandstanding... (those old enough to recall his pledge, after the Flats teen/young men drownings and underage liquor sales there in the late 1990s/early 2000s, to build high fences around all the riverfront clubs, know what I mean -- and the Flats East Bank soon died out not long after Joe's chest thumping).  This Cod episode sees Cimperman morphing back into his grenade-tossing worst mode, which is surely not welcome to those who desire progress.

 

About the only good news I see in this potential mess is that Geis has been publicly quiet to this point.  One of the truly great things about Frank Jackson that will become his legacy once he calls it quits is his ability to get conflicting parties together behind closed doors to get things done.  The evidence of this is sparkling all over downtown, starting with the new Convention Center... Hopefully this will happen again with the Lakefront project.  I've already communicated  my wishes with people on the ground who will oppose Council moving forward with the CLC's radical move.  If opponents are not successful, I'd like to think Frank's veto pen awaits. 

That's what he does.  It's what he's all about.  It's who he is.

 

This case, which could have been resolved quietly with (as Ken points out) either scenario working quite well, has become a micturation competition largely because of this individual, who has come to combine the worst aspects of Dennis Kucinich and Frank Russo (edit, more Russo than Dimora).

 

Great point about Jackson.  That's his one strength and saving grace as mayor.  Cimperman's his opposite, and would be a disaster in this role.

^Yeah, I was thinking of Dennis during his tumultuous 2 years as mayor way back when.  Those default/Cleveland Joke days were truly the city at its nadir...  I'm guessing I'm probably more in line with Dennis politically than you are, but I think he grew tremendously in his older age and became more of that fighter for the people he wanted to be as a young mayor, but couldn't be, because of his confrontational and immature instincts at the time.  Dennis became admired by many on the national, and even international stage, for his passion and progressiveness before the GOP ham-handedly gerrymandered him out of office.  I spoke with him and his lovely wife last summer, and he's quite a mellow, pleasant and thoughtful individual despite still being passionate.  He's very proud of his daughter who, of course, is doing quite well in the national media...

 

Btw, I think Frank has more than just 1 strength.  He's a smart guy and knows his community quite well.  He's just not the look-at-me type and his understated style sometimes is mistaken by some as a lack of drive or interest.  Despite some problems I've had with him, at times, his distinguished, low-key demeanor been the absolute best fit for Cleveland during its growth phase in this still new millennium, and these talents are needed to navigate this current, and needless, Cod mess, to clear the way for the city's critical need to finally and properly develop its Lakefront.

Here's the meed-ya's coverage of said topic...

 

Cleveland landmark status sought for USS COD

POSTED 7:29 AM, DECEMBER 11, 2015, BY ASSOCIATEDPRESS

 

CLEVELAND— Supporters of a World War II submarine memorial hope to get local landmark status for the USS COD to prevent the submarine docked in Cleveland from potentially being moved to make room for area development.

 

The city’s department of port control opposes the status and is concerned that such a designation would prevent it from moving the memorial for development purposes, if needed.

 

The Cleveland Landmarks Commission voted Thursday in favor of designating the national historic landmark as a local landmark. The issue now goes to the city council.

 

MORE:

http://fox8.com/2015/12/11/cleveland-landmark-status-sought-for-uss-cod/

I don't understand why the boat can't move.  It's a boat.  There might be other sections of the lakefront less amenable to development and more amenable to hosting it.

I don't understand why the boat can't move.  It's a boat.  There might be other sections of the lakefront less amenable to development and more amenable to hosting it.

I think it would be better for them to move to a higher visibility sight. I can say I didn't even really know it was there. I've been on the Mather but Cod is out of sight out of mind.

Seriously. I think its current site is terrible.

I don't understand why the boat can't move.  It's a boat.  There might be other sections of the lakefront less amenable to development and more amenable to hosting it.

 

They could probably turn it into a fundraiser.  $500/ticket to ride the Cod for a tow to North Coast Harbor.  First time it's moved in 50 years.  I bet they could sell 100 tickets in a heartbeat. 

It's indeed a terrible location, but I'm sure those guys love their little patch of grass, and parking lot. I'm sure moving their whole operation would be a tremendous PITA and probably have it's fair share of expenses.

 

There's also no guarantee that they wouldn't be pushed off into an even less desirable location. Most of North Coast Harbor is too small to accommodate the sub without significant docking/walkway equipment. The one spot that maybe could (SE side of Voinovich Park) is being utilized and also puts you in the line of fire of potentially stupid transient pleasure craft operators coming and going from the marina. Then you have the east side of the 9th street pier which is being used by an active boat that could cause major damage if there were an incident. Then maybe there would be water condition concerns.

^I wonder if parking is a big part of why these guys are terrified even by the possibility of a future move.

 

In any case, whatever the merits of different locations, using the landmark laws as a way to cement this particular one seems pretty dumb. There's nothing historic about this location.

I'm thinking it should go to a different area entirely.  Lorain, Fairport, E 55th, somewhere that it might stand out more as an attraction.

I'm thinking it should go to a different area entirely.  Lorain, Fairport, E 55th, somewhere that it might stand out more as an attraction.

 

What's wrong with North Coast Harbor?  It fits nicely with the Mather.  Maybe we could get another ship like Buffalo's little naval park.

Sounds like a great way to repurpose the Old Coast Guard station. Use the building as a museum/ event space. Have the Cod as the main attraction of a 100th group style restaurant/brewery.  The group would have office space. The Metroparks could be involved in running the complex. Just an idea.

^Minus the brewery and probably minus the restaurant, that isn't a bad idea.

Coast Guard station sounds good.  Nice nautical theme tying it all together.  The Cod gets overshadowed by a cluster of unrelated attractions where it is now. 

Not sure if it was an actual developers idea, or just an idea from someone on here, but there was a sketch out for carving channels into the parking lots on the west bank of the flats as part of a development there. I think that'd be a great spot to moor the Cod. Would be a great compliment to the aquarium too.

^ That was my idea.  :-D From the general Flats developments thread... http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,6840.msg769298.html#msg769298

 

Moving the USS Cod to the former Coast Guard station sounds like an excellent idea, though. The dock/pier leading up to the station is more than long enough to support it (whether or not the water in that basin is deep enough is another story). I could see that whole area being transformed into sort of a maritime museum, and with the Cod there it could also be a memorial honoring Ohio Navy vets.

 

EDIT: For ish and giggles, I did a quick Photoshop of the CG station and added in the Cod moored to the west side of the pier. I wasn't being too scientific with the scaling of the sub, but it's fairly close.

I like the idea of the USS Cod relocating to the Coast Guard station. It would be a great, 1940s thematic location. The only downside is that it is hard to get to. If access to the site could be improved, such as with stopover privileges on the Goodtime III or the new river taxi, that might change things.

 

If the Cod stays where it is, there's no reason why it and the Geis development can't co-exist. And I suspect that's the whole point of the Cod's backers seeking the landmark status, so they have some bargaining strength with Geis. Doesn't mean that either would get pushed out. This is what Geis envisioned...

 

^ KJP[/member] I hear ya but I don't think that's a full picture of what's going on here.

 

Here are the facts as I understand them:  The City owns the land that the Cod is moored to.  The Cod presumably has a leasing agreement with the City which is essentially acting as a landowner/landlord in this situation.  They have talked about redeveloping this property and have developers interested in doing so.  The City as the owner has the right to dispose of their property.

 

Normally, if a tenant wants to locate themselves in a spot they have to negotiate the terms of their lease - the Cod has presumably done this with the City.  The terms, duration, and price of the lease will be determined by the value calculated by the tenant.

 

So if the Cod has a year lease and are at risk of getting booted for a development project, then so be it - they should have gotten a longer lease.  And the City retains the ability to do this.

 

What the Cod is now attempting to do is to give itself a near perpetual lease for free by landmarking itself.  Now, instead of the leaseholder, landowner, and possible future developer negotiating the use of the property, we have a 3rd party commission who is tasked with historic preservation making the ultimate decision with which it has a very strong veto power.  That's not an efficient process at the very least - nor is it very democratic at all.

 

Furthermore, if the City is interested in public access to the waterfront, which I'm sure it is, then it can put that into the deal with the developer.  That seems to have more democratic input than punting the decision to the Landmark Commission.  Further still, this decision does not grant public access to the lakefront - quite the opposite!  It just determines that the Cod will remain where it is, which hardly gives public access to the lake at all.

 

I just don't see this as an egalitarian provision of a public good here.  This is a self interested party using government to give itself a near perpetual use of land which doesn't appear to benefit the public much at all.  It benefits the interested party immensely however.

 

If we are really interested in the provision of a public good, then requiring the developer to maintain access to the water in its development is by far the best route.  This can easily be done during the land deal.  We have done it successfully with FEB, the Lakefront Plan, the towpath on Scranton Penn., etc.  There is nothing to suggest the City's interest would change here.  But landmarking the Cod doesn't do that, not even close.  It just requires that a huge ship remains on the water's edge.  Who does that benefit?

 

Edit: If there are any facts that I've gotten wrong - I hope someone would correct me.

 

 

A few things:

 

* The city owns the land, but the Cod doesn't have a lease agreement with the city. There has been a submarine docked at that site since the 1930s, and the Cod has been there for more than 50 years. There has never been a lease, in my understanding.

 

* Landmark status would not guarantee that the Cod stays put. It would just require the city and any developer floating plans for that piece of property adjacent to the Cod (now enclosed by a vintage U.S. Navy chain-link fence and scattered with various artifacts/memorials/other items) to seek approval from the Landmarks Commission to modify the property, de-landmark the property or move the boat. Landmark status would add an extra layer of protection. As we've seen in Cleveland many times over the last few years (historic churches on Euclid Avenue come to mind), landmark status doesn't guarantee that a property is preserved.

 

* This property was included in the broader footprint for the property that the city and Geis have talked about. I need to check in with Geis on the status of any possible project on that land -- I did not have a chance to do that last week, and my sense has been that the developer's attentions are elsewhere.

 

/m

A few things:

 

* The city owns the land, but the Cod doesn't have a lease agreement with the city. There has been a submarine docked at that site since the 1930s, and the Cod has been there for more than 50 years. There has never been a lease, in my understanding.

 

* Landmark status would not guarantee that the Cod stays put. It would just require the city and any developer floating plans for that piece of property adjacent to the Cod (now enclosed by a vintage U.S. Navy chain-link fence and scattered with various artifacts/memorials/other items) to seek approval from the Landmarks Commission to modify the property, de-landmark the property or move the boat. Landmark status would add an extra layer of protection. As we've seen in Cleveland many times over the last few years (historic churches on Euclid Avenue come to mind), landmark status doesn't guarantee that a property is preserved.

 

* This property was included in the broader footprint for the property that the city and Geis have talked about. I need to check in with Geis on the status of any possible project on that land -- I did not have a chance to do that last week, and my sense has been that the developer's attentions are elsewhere.

 

/m

 

Thanks for the info, Michelle!  Wow, I had no idea there had been a submarine at that location for so long. I guess there is more merit to the nomination than I assumed. Still not convinced there would be anything lost, though, if the Cod were moved to another location downtown.

of course it should have been moved next to the science center long ago. best place for it.

 

what exactly is the site geis supposedly wants to develop? i take it's the parking lot in front of the cod next to the airport?

What sub was parked there during the 30s?

of course it should have been moved next to the science center long ago. best place for it.

 

what exactly is the site geis supposedly wants to develop? i take it's the parking lot in front of the cod next to the airport?

 

There's a map of the potential Geis site with this story: http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/08/geis_cos_float_plan_for_lakefr.html

What sub was parked there during the 30s?

 

Let me see if I can find out the specific name of the earliest submarine to dock there through Paul Farace over at the Cod. His records show that a submarine has used that dock since 1936, and there was a fleet sub at the dock starting in 1947. The Cod came to Cleveland in the late 1950s as part of the naval reserve training program.

 

Michelle

 

PS - Supposedly that piece of property was a sea-plane anchorage before it became a submarine dock. Just some random trivia for you.

What sub was parked there during the 30s?

 

I found that the USS Gar was there from 1948-59 as both a Navy Reserve training ship and a museum ship. I haven't been able to find anything yet on a submarine that was there before that.

I heard there's a trailer out there for the first phase of the Cumberland development, along with some utility work going on.  I haven't been over there in a while, so I can't confirm.

Construction underway on first phase of downtown Cleveland lakefront development...

 

A couple more pictures on a 65-degree Dec. 23...

 

Wow the Hilton looks so striking in that first picture. Love the blue color of the glass.

^^Good to see the start of the Cumberland development. With decent weather that building should go up quick.

Downtown Cleveland lakefront project nabs Nuevo, an Akron-based eatery, to open in July

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio – An Akron-based restaurant will open a two-story eatery next to Voinovich Park in July, becoming the first tenant in the first phase of a much broader development planned for downtown Cleveland's lakefront.

 

Nuevo Modern Mexican and Tequila Bar just firmed up a deal with developer Dick Pace to occupy a visible site near the end of the East Ninth Street Pier. Already under construction, the restaurant could have its debut as event space during the Republican National Convention. It's not likely to be open for regular business until after convention-goers leave town.

 

www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2016/01/downtown_cleveland_lakefront_p.html#incart_river_home

 

Nuevo Akron is very good.  This is a good deal for Cle lakefront.

Awesome. We need Mexican downtown. The only thing we have is Zocalo which is abysmal (to me) and of course Momocho is great. But I'm excited for this!

I just realized with these developments the North Coast Harbor station should finally get a big bump in riders.

Lake Shore power plant is too degraded to preserve and reuse, FirstEnergy officials say (photos)

http://www.cleveland.com/architecture/index.ssf/2016/01/lake_shore_plant_too_far_gone.html

Lake Shore power plant is too degraded to preserve and reuse, FirstEnergy officials say (photos)

http://www.cleveland.com/architecture/index.ssf/2016/01/lake_shore_plant_too_far_gone.html

Shocker lol. That tends to happen when you do nothing to a property for years.

^ Unsurprising but sad.