We don't need a $6 million dollar drawbridge here.  Serves no purpose.  Half the city is in turmoil from poverty but somehow there's fortunes available to blow on crud like this.

^I have to agree- at this point this bridge just seems unnecessary. 

It's astounding how bad the city manages the lakefront. It literally blows my mind. At what point is it seen as an asset? Some actually want Burke to be handed over to the city as well? Keep it an airport.

^I have to agree- at this point this bridge just seems unnecessary. 

 

Reprogram the $6 million to two enclosed pedestrian bridges linking the convention center/malls/hotel/city hall parking garage to North Coast Harbor via the Lakefront Multimodal Transportation Center.

 

EDIT: $6 million may be enough to round out the financing necessary to build the following....

 

BTW, interesting comment in the above article from Richard Pace of Cumberland Development....

 

Meanwhile, plans for a $30 million foot bridge have been shelved because of the price tag.

 

Pace says a bridge would be a good start. But he’d like to see the return of an element from that thirty-year-old plan he helped with.

 

“ If you add another city block in there with office space, with residential space, all of a sudden downtown is connected to the lakefront,” he says. “It's no longer separated from the lakefront.”

 

I wonder -- could the $25 million in hand be used to build the foundations for private sector-funded building/plaza spanning the tracks? Or....

 

RESOURCES

+ There is about $25 million available for a pedestrian bridge linking the

convention center to North Coast Harbor.

+ If Greyhound relocated to North Coast Harbor, how much city capital

improvement fund/bonded lease revenues from the new station? $5 million? $10

million?

+ Amtrak has said it would be willing to make about $4 million worth of

improvements to its station. I'm told by Amtrak station personnel Justice

Department staffers were inspecting the station/platform area in January. Is an

ADA noncompliance action pending?

+ With $30 million to $40 million possibly available from project partners,

about $5 million to $10 million more could be needed from the federal government

to achieve:

 

BASIC FACILITY NEEDS

+ 200-foot pre-fab enclosed walkway over the railroad/RTA tracks -- $7 million

+ 250-foot pre-fab enclosed walkway over the Shoreway & Erieside Avenue -- $8

million

+ Walkway wraps around the interior perimeter, mezzanine level of new Greyhound

building -- see next item for cost

+ 22,000 sf newly constructed Greyhound station, driveways, parking, terminal

apron -- $20 million

+ Refurbish Amtrak station building, relocate parking, expand station platform

-- $5 million

 

TOTAL ESTIMATED COST -- $40 million

 

CLE-lakefront-multimodal-walkway by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

lakefront-walkway structures by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

It's astounding how bad the city manages the lakefront. It literally blows my mind. At what point is it seen as an asset?

 

It's been that way for like 80 years. Maybe 100. Pretty much everything north of City Hall is awful.  No idea how to fix it at this point, but this bridge  seems like throwing good money after bad.

^I agree. But there is a Catch 22 here. You can't successfully develop the lakefront without at least some elements of walkability - I'd posit that E. 9th and W. 3rd provide about 33% of the connectivity needed - this will likely require a connector.

 

However, the connector will be a waste of money until the lakefront becomes a "destination." Right now, Nuevo on its own isn't enough to rationalize it.

Downtown has two regular museums and two museums that are also boats.  All of these are located on the lakefront.  Plus the stadium, for what that's worth.  What more do we think should be done to make the downtown lakefront into a destination?  Maybe those efforts could be better leveraged in other ways, in other parts of town.  The lake happens to be frozen for a good portion of the year, which limits the allure of hanging out right next to it.  There are plenty of cold-weather port cities that don't necessarily feature their immediate waterfront area.  I think we beat ourselves up too much over this.

^I agree. But there is a Catch 22 here. You can't successfully develop the lakefront without at least some elements of walkability - I'd posit that E. 9th and W. 3rd provide about 33% of the connectivity needed - this will likely require a connector.

 

However, the connector will be a waste of money until the lakefront becomes a "destination." Right now, Nuevo on its own isn't enough to rationalize it.

 

But will more significant lakefront development lead the provision of improved pedestrian connectivity or follow it? I suggest it is the latter.

Downtown has two regular museums and two museums that are also boats.  All of these are located on the lakefront.  Plus the stadium, for what that's worth.  What more do we think should be done to make the downtown lakefront into a destination?  Maybe those efforts could be better leveraged in other ways, in other parts of town.  The lake happens to be frozen for a good portion of the year, which limits the allure of hanging out right next to it.  There are plenty of cold-weather port cities that don't necessarily feature their immediate waterfront area.  I think we beat ourselves up too much over this.

 

I agree.  Plus, there are several parks right on the lake for the community to enjoy (including fishing and boating) between Downtown and Bratenahl.  At this point, unless someone with a big pocketbook wants to do something visionary at their own expense, the only thing near the lake I would like to see get attention is the potential multimodal hub.

  There are plenty of cold-weather port cities that don't necessarily feature their immediate waterfront area.

 

I started thinking about this. What cities don't feature their waterfront? Detroit? Philly? Buffalo? The list is pretty small even for cold weather cities. Or are we counting cities in Russia? Hell, even St. Pete has a nice waterfront. Baltimore is building 30-story apartment buildings on it's waterfront while the city of Cleveland plans an outlet mall. I think there are reasons for concern.

 

 

Downtown has two regular museums and two museums that are also boats.  All of these are located on the lakefront.  Plus the stadium, for what that's worth.  What more do we think should be done to make the downtown lakefront into a destination?  Maybe those efforts could be better leveraged in other ways, in other parts of town.  The lake happens to be frozen for a good portion of the year, which limits the allure of hanging out right next to it.  There are plenty of cold-weather port cities that don't necessarily feature their immediate waterfront area.  I think we beat ourselves up too much over this.

 

Couldn't disagree more. The lakefront is simply an asset that continues to be underutilized. Every waterfront city in America that's worth visiting does better than us.

But to be fair, Cleveland does feature its waterfront.  The public access and conditions along the river have been terrifically improved in recent years, and the pedestrian connection to Wendy Park will be great too.  There is already good, pedestrian-oriented waterfront downtown, and it's pretty popular (in season)!

 

Maybe this exaggerates it a bit, but this whole bridge project just seems like a lame brained obsession with getting out of town conventioneers to the lakefront.  I mean, I get that it's not immediately obvious how to get down there if you're on the Mall, but even with a new bridge, it's going to be long, kind of lonely walk over and through no-man's land that visitors won't want to do in cold or bad weather, and all to get you to a windswept, museum campus that faces a kind of stagnant inner channel.  The incremental benefit over much cheaper options, like improving pedestrian signage and enhancing 9th Street, or maybe even rebuilding the old pedestrian bridge and enhancing those grade crossings, doesn't seem all that great.

Well, we have 2 waterfronts here; everyone on here forgets the Cuyahoga river exists . We have already invested tons in merwin's warf, the foundry, flats eastbank phase 2 (the boardwalk especially), the renovation of the collision bend brewery strip, the water taxi, the aquarium, and plenty of small non-headline grabbing businesses like brick and barrel, and rising star coffee.

 

Irishtown bend will be rebabbed and turned into a beautiful park long before a drawbridge to save people walking 100 yards is built.

 

I would love for the lake to be lined with a vibrant and active neighborhood but currently there is no political willpower to:

A. Actually turn the shoreway into a real boulevard

B. Address the freight train traffic

C. Address the future uses of Burke

D. Build successful connections from the downtown street grid to the lake

 

I'm a bit skeptical to open up massive parts of the waterfront to development, especially Burke, just because we don't have population growth in our region and I'm worried it would cannibalize revitalization in existing neighborhoods. I'd prefer to focus on using the waterfront for public parkland for now. Focus on Edgewater and also Gordon Park which could be way more than it is. The CEI power plant that was torn down over there is a huge opportunity for Gordon Park. Perhaps there could be some limited development by the Browns Stadium and the museums but we are better off focusing on existing neighborhoods with aged buildings. A new neighborhood on the lake will turn out to be like Crocker Park.

Well, we have 2 waterfronts here; everyone on here forgets the Cuyahoga river exists .

 

Nobody has forgotten about the Cuyahoga. Everyone knows the city plans it as the primary walkable waterfront area. It's the lakefront which is forgotten at times and it's also the subject of this thread.

To add to the above, when Clevelanders bemoan the state of the lakeshore it's almost always followed by Chicago comparisons. Chicago, however, also has a massive highway separating their street grid from the lake, so that's not even an excuse. It's probably a bit easier than in Cleveland, but getting to the lake from Downtown Chicago isn't a picnic either. And they even prohibit development between that freeway and the lake.

 

The area between Browns Stadium and Voinovich can be our Navy Pier area, but other than that, we should just give as much of it to the Metroparks as we can, and try to make it easier for pedestrians to cross the Shoreway. If Burke is ever closed it should be a park... That's the actual Chicago model. What has been done by Edgewater is pretty much what we should be doing.

  There are plenty of cold-weather port cities that don't necessarily feature their immediate waterfront area.

 

I started thinking about this. What cities don't feature their waterfront? Detroit? Philly? Buffalo? The list is pretty small even for cold weather cities. Or are we counting cities in Russia? Hell, even St. Pete has a nice waterfront. Baltimore is building 30-story apartment buildings on it's waterfront while the city of Cleveland plans an outlet mall. I think there are reasons for concern.

 

St. Petersburg has considerable density on its waterfront.  We've got mismatched attractions spaced out in a suburban format, limiting our options.  And we can't do towers in that area because of Burke.  We could have done towers or mixed-use density in FEB, chose to do something else.  We still have a lot of riverfront where we could do towers, or we could do St. Petersburg.  Or we can move Burke, move the port, move the stadium and GLSC and RRHOF, try again with the downtown lakefront.  But whether we're talking about that or just a $6 million dollar footbridge, I would sooner rehab Glenville.

I would love for the lake to be lined with a vibrant and active neighborhood but currently there is no political willpower to:

A. Actually turn the shoreway into a real boulevard

B. Address the freight train traffic

C. Address the future uses of Burke

D. Build successful connections from the downtown street grid to the lake

 

Regarding Point C, there is political willpower---committing BKL to being an airport, which is the right thing to do. This is despite many who don't understand Burke and want it turned back into a landfill or just vacant lakefront property, though thinking big developing would suddenly appear at Burke even though it hasn't on existing land east of the stadium.

We could have done towers or mixed-use density in FEB, chose to do something else.  We still have a lot of riverfront where we could do towers, or we could do St. Petersburg.  Or we can move Burke, move the port, move the stadium and GLSC and RRHOF, try again with the downtown lakefront.  But whether we're talking about that or just a $6 million dollar footbridge, I would sooner rehab Glenville.

 

I'd bet the return on investment per city dollar is much higher on the river than it would be at the stadium-E9th-Burke lakefront. It's not too late to increase the density in FEB. 

 

 

We could have done towers or mixed-use density in FEB, chose to do something else.  We still have a lot of riverfront where we could do towers, or we could do St. Petersburg.  Or we can move Burke, move the port, move the stadium and GLSC and RRHOF, try again with the downtown lakefront.  But whether we're talking about that or just a $6 million dollar footbridge, I would sooner rehab Glenville.

 

I'd bet the return on investment per city dollar is much higher on the river than it would be at the stadium-E9th-Burke lakefront. It's not too late to increase the density in FEB. 

 

If true, this is only because the Cleveland lakefront is a bizarro world. By all means it should be incredibly attractive real estate with developers climbing all over themselves. Yet the city can't or won't summon the willpower to provide enough enough access. It's frustrating. If the city did nothing but simply provide access and something of a subdivided plan with a grid layout and public easements to the water, I believe we would then see real, organic growth.

^Here's my lakefront development plan: demo the stadium; demo that stretch of the Shoreway; lay out paper streets; subdivide the land into townhouse sized lots; auction the new lots and useless green space near the museums to developers/home builders who would be free to recombine lots as they see fit; use auction proceeds + TIF to pay for road paving, public utility connections, public waterfront promenade, and modest new pedestrian bridge(s) from Mall just over the RR tracks.

^ I'm not ready to give up on the stadium just yet. In a region that's as football crazed as it is I'm sure the place could evolve into more interactive and useful sports/cultural facility.

^Given the infrequency of their use and huge crowds when they are used, I think football stadiums are better thought of as disamenities, like prisons or power plants. But given how much money taxpayers keep dumping into that thing, I know it's not going anywhere for a while.

^Given the infrequency of their use and huge crowds when they are used, I think football stadiums are better thought of as disamenities, like prisons or power plants. But given how much money taxpayers keep dumping into that thing, I know it's not going anywhere for a while.

 

Yeah. I know it's not as simple as just throwing a roof on the structure. But one can envision more use for the stadium, as is the case with Lucas Oil Field. Actually IIRC the Browns signaled they could partner with the Clinic to make sports training/health and wellness a focus of the lakefront. Another plan in the pile of many that went nowhere. But I could totally picture that working out.

We could have done towers or mixed-use density in FEB, chose to do something else.  We still have a lot of riverfront where we could do towers, or we could do St. Petersburg.  Or we can move Burke, move the port, move the stadium and GLSC and RRHOF, try again with the downtown lakefront.  But whether we're talking about that or just a $6 million dollar footbridge, I would sooner rehab Glenville.

 

I'd bet the return on investment per city dollar is much higher on the river than it would be at the stadium-E9th-Burke lakefront. It's not too late to increase the density in FEB. 

 

If true, this is only because the Cleveland lakefront is a bizarro world. By all means it should be incredibly attractive real estate with developers climbing all over themselves. Yet the city can't or won't summon the willpower to provide enough enough access. It's frustrating. If the city did nothing but simply provide access and something of a subdivided plan with a grid layout and public easements to the water, I believe we would then see real, organic growth.

 

Sounds good, but where would this new grid go?  And what kind of access would be needed, that we don't have now?

We could have done towers or mixed-use density in FEB, chose to do something else.  We still have a lot of riverfront where we could do towers, or we could do St. Petersburg.  Or we can move Burke, move the port, move the stadium and GLSC and RRHOF, try again with the downtown lakefront.  But whether we're talking about that or just a $6 million dollar footbridge, I would sooner rehab Glenville.

 

I'd bet the return on investment per city dollar is much higher on the river than it would be at the stadium-E9th-Burke lakefront. It's not too late to increase the density in FEB. 

 

If true, this is only because the Cleveland lakefront is a bizarro world. By all means it should be incredibly attractive real estate with developers climbing all over themselves. Yet the city can't or won't summon the willpower to provide enough enough access. It's frustrating. If the city did nothing but simply provide access and something of a subdivided plan with a grid layout and public easements to the water, I believe we would then see real, organic growth.

 

Sounds good, but where would this new grid go?  And what kind of access would be needed, that we don't have now?

 

Well, as far as access to the lakefront? The disconnect from everything else is psychological and physical. It cannot accommodate a lot of auto traffic in a functional manner, nor is it welcoming to cyclists or pedestrians. I'd vote StrapHanger for Mayor on his Shoreway policy alone. It's a fixable situation, certainly, but I'm just as certain I won't live long enough to see it actually happen.

 

I know it's near pipe dream level, but the land bridge idea that brings the malls right to NCH is what Cleveland deserves. Just like we've been seeing with the Towpath, the bridge would do wonders for reinvigorating the lakefront. You bring more people into the equation and provide opportunity it would be like magic.

 

I'm not sure what context the street grid should appear, beyond my pay grade. But just as the California Coastal Commission works to ensure that buildings don't block too much sunlight, or water views, or impede public access to the water, we can enact the same type of government body here to ensure that future development is in kind and character with what we our waterfront district to be.

 

I can't believe they're going to spend $6 million on a bridge in that location.

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2018/02/superman_statue_needs_new_land.html#incart_river_home

Superman statue needs new landing site, Rock Hall locale out

Originally, the statue would have been placed alongside a proposed pedestrian bridge that would connect the Cleveland downtown mall to the North Coast Harbor near the Rock Hall and the Great Lake Science Center.

 

The developer of the property, Richard Pace, has decided against allowing the statue to be placed at the location. Pace is a co-founder and former member of the Siegel and Shuster Society which promotes Superman and his Cleveland creators.

 

"I had a long history with the society and worked a long time to find a place for the statue," he said. "We thought it was a perfect site. But, we are working with a group that has a major development for that site and there is no room for the site. We would love to have the statue somewhere in the harbor development. I would be happy to work with the committee to look for another site (in the harbor area). I have no timeline when I will be able to do that. I did not want to hold the statue up so I suggested they look elsewhere.

 

 

 

I am interested if this news also means the lakefront pedestrian bridge must terminate somewhere else. I am intrigued by the "major development" Richard Pace eludes to in this article

 

To add to the above, when Clevelanders bemoan the state of the lakeshore it's almost always followed by Chicago comparisons. Chicago, however, also has a massive highway separating their street grid from the lake, so that's not even an excuse. It's probably a bit easier than in Cleveland, but getting to the lake from Downtown Chicago isn't a picnic either. And they even prohibit development between that freeway and the lake.

 

The area between Browns Stadium and Voinovich can be our Navy Pier area, but other than that, we should just give as much of it to the Metroparks as we can, and try to make it easier for pedestrians to cross the Shoreway. If Burke is ever closed it should be a park... That's the actual Chicago model. What has been done by Edgewater is pretty much what we should be doing.

 

Agreed.  Chicago's lakefront is as well cut-off by a highway known as Lake Shore Blvd.  Grant Park, until the recent Millennial Park opened, wasn't exactly a hub of activity.

We don't need a $6 million dollar drawbridge here.  Serves no purpose.  Half the city is in turmoil from poverty but somehow there's fortunes available to blow on crud like this.

 

Our first priority is to build a pedestrian bridge from Mall C to the lakefront.  Half the city may be in turmoil from poverty yet Cleveland has employers trying to fill jobs (but that's another discussion).

I've never heard anyone complain that they were standing on Mall C and unable to bathe behind the Rock Hall within 5 minutes.  For whom is that a priority?  Then again I haven't seen anyone standing on Mall C since the Cavs parade.

I've never heard anyone complain that they were standing on Mall C and unable to bathe behind the Rock Hall within 5 minutes.  For whom is that a priority?  Then again I haven't seen anyone standing on Mall C since the Cavs parade.

 

You're right, E 9th Street is a great pedestrian and cycling access the lakefront, especially on a busy summer day.  Even better when heavy vehicular traffic is entering and exiting the shoreway from E 9th.  It's such an attractive walkway as well. 

 

Perhaps you would see people on using Mall C if it went anywhere...like the lakefront.

 

You would be the first person advocating that E 9th Street is as good as it gets...then again this is Cleveland so why would it want proper and safe access to the greatest asset in the State of Ohio.

Wonder what the lakefront would look like 30+ years later if Progressive HQ building had gone up?

I've never heard anyone complain that they were standing on Mall C and unable to bathe behind the Rock Hall within 5 minutes.  For whom is that a priority?  Then again I haven't seen anyone standing on Mall C since the Cavs parade.

 

The Malls continue to struggle with attracting people; there's nothing to do there.  The City Beautiful Movement, while nice on paper 100+ years ago left Cleveland with some real dead-zones, although I think today's version of the malls is the best.  Having more downtown workers would help.

The malls are probably busier now than they've ever been (at least in the past fifty years) due to hotels and convention center. It's kind of 'tourist' turf though, locals don't go there. Which is a shame because it's nice over there.

People keep saying lakefront access.  What do they mean specifically?  Voinovich Park?  That's at the end of 9th street, so yes, 9th street seems like a reasonable way to get there.  It could be better but do we honestly believe Voinovich Park is a hotspot in waiting, as soon as it gets this bridge?  I believe there's also an area behind GLSC where you can hang out.  But I'm sorry, no footbridge is going to transform that into Santa Monica Pier. 

People keep saying lakefront access.  What do they mean specifically?  Voinovich Park?  That's at the end of 9th street, so yes, 9th street seems like a reasonable way to get there.  It could be better but do we honestly believe Voinovich Park is a hotspot in waiting, as soon as it gets this bridge?  I believe there's also an area behind GLSC where you can hang out.  But I'm sorry, no footbridge is going to transform that into Santa Monica Pier. 

 

You are concentrating on what it's like now instead of what it can and should be.

People keep saying lakefront access.  What do they mean specifically?  Voinovich Park?  That's at the end of 9th street, so yes, 9th street seems like a reasonable way to get there.  It could be better but do we honestly believe Voinovich Park is a hotspot in waiting, as soon as it gets this bridge?  I believe there's also an area behind GLSC where you can hang out.  But I'm sorry, no footbridge is going to transform that into Santa Monica Pier.

 

Lakefront access?  Crossing the ''moat'' between the city and the lakefront, the railroad tracks that E 9th Street bridges.

 

Why bother doing anything down there since its not going to become Santa Monica Pier.  Why is the Rock Hall, Great Lakes Science Center there?  Why was the harbor dug-out 30 years ago?  Should have just left it a parking lot for whatever version of the stadium is plunked down there.

 

Lots of cities are working to connect to their waterfronts, Cleveland being one of them.  I mean convenient walkability is so ''out'' in U.S. cities today.

 

Obviously you have never walked or biked to Voinovich Park in the summer via E 9th Street if you think E 9th seems like a reasonable way to get to the lakefront.  In a car? For sure, E 9th is a highway egress/ingress access, tossed in with additional road and parking garage access points.

 

Again, if you've gone down there in the summer, you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Voinovich Park as a non-hot spot, with lots of additional potential.

The malls are probably busier now than they've ever been (at least in the past fifty years) due to hotels and convention center. It's kind of 'tourist' turf though, locals don't go there. Which is a shame because it's nice over there.

 

Not quite.  The malls are not as busy as ever in the past 50 years.  What is there to do on Malls B or C? Mall A gets some attention from the Veterans Memorial but otherwise, not sure what even tourists are doing in any of these public spaces.  Crossing the Malls doesn't count as use.

 

The Hanna Fountains attracted lots of people during the day.  Mall B today is a giant, sloped lawn with a garish Flame from the Senior Games plopped awkwardly on it.

 

 

Crossing the Malls doesn't count as use.

 

That's all I was referring to. You do in fact see human beings there. They are far underutilized otherwise.

Crossing the Malls doesn't count as use.

 

That's all I was referring to. You do in fact see human beings there. They are far underutilized otherwise.

 

That was the problem with the Mall concept as part of the City Beautiful Movement; the creation of dead zones.  Hopefully more residents, visitors, workers etc will make the Malls, esp. B, busier, as a summer hang-out area.

 

More special events, concerts, even a party-in-the-park would help.

 

A pedestrian bridge from Mall C to the lakefront will funnel more people off E 9th Street to the malls though.

^ In an ideal world, I'd like to see the mall extended as a land bridge across the moat.  But i digress.

In Burnham's defense, there was supposed to be a train station where Mall C is which would have made the place always busy. Still though they were too preoccupied with building grand structures and underestimated the value of mixed uses in getting a place to be busy. If all you have is courthouses and board of education buildings, it's never going to be a happening place.

 

As far as the pedestrian bridge, I support something in general, totally capping it off with a land bridge would be nice, obviously ridiculously expensive. I don't remember what the current plans are, there's been so many iterations, but I just hope the thing isn't a rickety piece of junk.

There's a huge difference in discussing the bridge TO the lakefront from Mall C, which would definitely be useful in activating both the Mall and the Lakefront area, and this pedestrial bridge connecting Voinovich park to....something...the Mather?  At this point in time, that connector bridge is a complete and utter waste of time and money.  Such a bridge should be one of the final pieces in developing this area, UNLESS there is some evidence that developers cannot develop the land north and northwest of Browns stadium without the bridge to connect the development to Voinovich.  I don't think that's a deal breaker especially since any development north of the stadium should come with its own public access to the lakefront by virtue of it literally being right there ON the Lakefront.

 

The key to activating any of these areas will be development around them. The malls (particularly the northern ones) are dead NOT because "there's nothing to do" there, but because there's nothing AROUND there.  Courthouses and City Hall, all with attached garages and no reason to go out there.  The Lakefront? Not a single residence.  The park and the pier and the harbor are beautiful, but you'd got to really "want it" if you want to get down there.

 

And if I'm allowed a flight of fancy, it's relocating the Waterfront line north of its current alignment, turning north and circling the stadium, creating a lakefront TOD north of the stadium, then turning south on/replacing Erieside and then heading east to E. 9th.  A stop at the RRHOF doorstop and some development on the lawns around there would also be of value.  Ideally you find a way to get over or under the shoreway (or across in a boulevard configuration) to return to the muni lots and keep the downtown loop hopes alive.

 

 

In Burnham's defense, there was supposed to be a train station where Mall C is which would have made the place always busy. Still though they were too preoccupied with building grand structures and underestimated the value of mixed uses in getting a place to be busy. If all you have is courthouses and board of education buildings, it's never going to be a happening place.

 

As far as the pedestrian bridge, I support something in general, totally capping it off with a land bridge would be nice, obviously ridiculously expensive. I don't remember what the current plans are, there's been so many iterations, but I just hope the thing isn't a rickety piece of junk.

 

Understood about the train station, just didn't happen as it went to the Terminal Tower.  The lakefront location would have been a much better location in hindsight of course and may have helped with Cleveland's long-term public transit development.  Today, I wouldn't build a transit hub there.

 

The last version of the lakefront ped bridge is the one that was supposed to go in just prior to the 2016 RNC.  Since then, the project is another ''bridge in limbo''.

 

 

The key to activating any of these areas will be development around them. The malls (particularly the northern ones) are dead NOT because "there's nothing to do" there, but because there's nothing AROUND there.  Courthouses and City Hall, all with attached garages and no reason to go out there.

 

Yeah I think that's pretty much what we meant.

There's a huge difference in discussing the bridge TO the lakefront from Mall C, which would definitely be useful in activating both the Mall and the Lakefront area, and this pedestrial bridge connecting Voinovich park to....something...the Mather?  At this point in time, that connector bridge is a complete and utter waste of time and money.  Such a bridge should be one of the final pieces in developing this area, UNLESS there is some evidence that developers cannot develop the land north and northwest of Browns stadium without the bridge to connect the development to Voinovich.  I don't think that's a deal breaker especially since any development north of the stadium should come with its own public access to the lakefront by virtue of it literally being right there ON the Lakefront.

 

The key to activating any of these areas will be development around them. The malls (particularly the northern ones) are dead NOT because "there's nothing to do" there, but because there's nothing AROUND there.  Courthouses and City Hall, all with attached garages and no reason to go out there.  The Lakefront? Not a single residence.  The park and the pier and the harbor are beautiful, but you'd got to really "want it" if you want to get down there.

 

And if I'm allowed a flight of fancy, it's relocating the Waterfront line north of its current alignment, turning north and circling the stadium, creating a lakefront TOD north of the stadium, then turning south on/replacing Erieside and then heading east to E. 9th.  A stop at the RRHOF doorstop and some development on the lawns around there would also be of value.  Ideally you find a way to get over or under the shoreway (or across in a boulevard configuration) to return to the muni lots and keep the downtown loop hopes alive.

 

Hope the future lakefront development adds lots of parking with it otherwise.

 

If the waterfront line is in play, loop it south through the CBD, add in a west side extension.

 

The malls were busier when there were more office workers to sit around the old fountains.  So it's more of an activity-attraction to the malls than the surrounding public buildings being the real issue.  Today there is a Marriott, Hilton, Drury Lane, even the Westin hotel on or adjacent to the Malls and they're still dead zones.  Not to mention the underground convention center and healthmart.

What does everyone think North Coast Harbor is missing to attract activity?  Is the expectation being a tourist destination or hot spot for it's citizens to enjoy?  Besides the occasional visit to GLSC , RRHF,  and  a game or event at First Energy Stadium, I would prefer actual water access such as Edgewater Park.   

People keep saying lakefront access.  What do they mean specifically?  Voinovich Park?  That's at the end of 9th street, so yes, 9th street seems like a reasonable way to get there.  It could be better but do we honestly believe Voinovich Park is a hotspot in waiting, as soon as it gets this bridge?  I believe there's also an area behind GLSC where you can hang out.  But I'm sorry, no footbridge is going to transform that into Santa Monica Pier. 

 

You are concentrating on what it's like now instead of what it can and should be.

 

I'm asking what it should be.  And I'm seeking rationale for specific investments, like this bridge, whenever "access to the lake" is the only reason given.  Access for whom to do what?  Drink the water?  Bathe?  Fish?  Mine some salt, build a tugboat?  Ride a pony?  What problems does the project solve and in what way?  Connection between the end and the means of these projects often seems weak and it's not always clear what the end entails. 

 

Personally, for the area we're talking about, I would focus on the rail facility the Group Plan originally included (or some lesser version thereof).  The Malls and the lakefront near them are dead zones because we forgot to build the one building that was supposed to connect those two areas and bring a steady stream of people through.  That's not a design failure, it's a failure to consider logistical consequences before changing the design. 

 

Recall our recent Public Square fiasco:  "Your vibrancy is impeded by all these streets and buses and people!  Forget the hows and the whys-- vibrancy is just on the other side of this invoice!  Did we mention families?  That's right, families need better access to vibrancy.  You guys are so much smarter than the Shelbyville crowd."

I stayed at the Westin hotel on my first real visit to Cleveland (as an adult at least), and when I left the hotel to go explore, I was naturally drawn west toward the malls, Public Square, Terminal Tower, etc. I found the malls and the buildings around them to be beautiful, but very dead. I don't think I saw a single retail outpost between the Westin and Public Square. I also remember looking at the lake and the Rock Hall from the end of the malls, and wanting to go down there, and being a bit puzzled on how to do so. I ended up going down to the Lake to watch the sunset that night, and 9th street actually was very convenient to the hotel, but the connection of the malls to the lake should definitely be a priority.

 

It's interesting that both Santa Monica and Chicago have their waterfront districts cut off from the rest of the city by pretty huge barriers. I mean, just to get down to the beach in Santa Monica, you have to scale a cliff and cross a bridge over the PCH. Chicago has Lakeshore cutting off their lakefront, too. The whole 'freeway by the water' thing was a pretty huge misstep in urban planning, but these cities show that people will overcome barriers to get to places they want to go. Cleveland's lakefront is a place that people want to go. It's beautiful and peaceful, and it's an asset that Columbus and Cincinnati and most other Midwestern cities don't have. I don't know what the solution is for increased connectivity, and I don't know if a long pedestrian bridge from a pretty much dead zone (malls) is the answer, but it's worth looking into. Is there anyway for the grid to be extended to the lake? On paper it looks like maybe Mall Dr. could be extended, but I don't know if that's logistically possible at all. I think that a real street would be preferable to a pedestrian bridge, as it would almost certainly be more active and lively, and would be more intuitive for visitors as well.