I really can't wait to get this started, as well as the flats and medical mart. I've been waiting to long, I know its soon but I just want to be excited. I am but its always better once construction has started.

 

Narrowing a river for parking...FOR PARKING ?????!!!!!

Excuse me while I put my eyeballs back in my head.

Quite frankly I don't care about this verkakte Casino, but that's mostly because I am not into gambling.

I did vote yes on it though so everyone else could, wondering now how wise that was.

Through an inside source I was able to secure the most updated rendering of what they plan on doing :lol:

 

If this is what I think it is......Then it is utterly...absolutely, positively PATHETIC!!!  All the parking downtown....and this? Obviously Mr Gilbert knows no other life except the parking lot scene that is so much of Detroit. Looks like I am going to have to call on the troops to start a massive letter writing campaign to the ACOE, OEPA, etc. to deny all permits for this travesty. Dumb.. Dumb.. Dumb!.... As though we need more surface lots to accommodate fat asses to lazy to walk 40 feet so they can spend what they don't have on a penny slot machine. Sorry, but anyone who jumps on me for saying this.. I suggest they get an education in aquatic ecology and understand why this is simply retarded...aside from the points Clueless made... What a joke...and this is a city striving to be "green" and sustainable? This is the best worst example of river abuse yet. One guy should not have this much power to implement this. Cleveland deserves so much better and a plan with vision. This would be a joke by many city standards.

they are building over the towercity parking garage entrance, aren't they? they need to build to compensate Forrest city and an prepare for an influx of driving customers. why is parking unthinkable

"If its the casino, i don't see what the cost has to do with our position on it."

 

From everything we've heard and what we were told prior to the casino vote, Gilbert is going to be sinking some serious money into the casino - making it "part of the urban fabric". That no doubt helped him gain the votes he needed to get this approved.

 

Well, doing all that and delivering something worth mentioning (at least as far as a casino goes) costs serious money even if we weren't talking about geo-engineering the Cuyahoga. So let's say he's planning to spend $600+ million on this - if he has to allocate a good chunk of that because his architects/planners are so flipping ignorant that they'd disrupt river traffic, cause untold damage to a recuperating aquatic ecosystem just to add even more f#cking parking in a city that's beyond blessed with it unable to come up with a better solution, guess what gets valued engineered out? That would be the funding that was planned for the casino's overall aesthetic. It's cheaper for casinos to build a gussied up windowless box, so the more they spend a good chunk of that $600+ million on things like adding parking (and the excavation of the river, etc.), the less they'll be spending to provide a building that has any aesthetic appeal. This would be one time where some less than vocal leaders *cough*Mayor*cough*Design Review*cough* need to be the party of NO.

The way that I read this is that the cantilever  of the building is the main driver for this. If they are talking about moving the bulkhead 29 ft at the most that would add an extra row of parking. No way is Gilbert going to OK spending $10M's for a row of parking. The parking appears to be secondary, unfortunately it's listed first in the article because that is what is going to placed on the land.

 

I am sure that they have done a cost benefit study on this option. It has to be based on the footprint of the building and the other optionswould to be add another level to the casino which would have costed more $$$.

 

Also they don't appear completely sold on the idea themselves. 

if they infill on one side of the river, can they cut into Scranton Peninsula, and kind of shift the river?

 

That sounds awefully expensive.  Property acquisition, bulkhead removal, exgavation, bulkhead installation (both sides of river).  I would imagine they'll petition the Feds for some reduction in river width at that location and then work with whatever they're given. 

 

It's not like reducing the river width to begin with is going to be cheap.  Yeah, I understand cutting into Scranton Peninsula would add even more cost, but this doesn't sound cheap from any angle...

These are not going to be surface lots.  It's going to be a multilevel parking garage underneath the casino.  And as much as some people hate parking, if you're going to have a facility that draws millions of visitors a year, they need a place to park.  I don't think downtown Cleveland has too much parking.  I think it has too many parking SURFACE LOTS, but not too many parking spaces.  It's a city - build up, not out.

 

Hey, as long as we're altering the river, let's just dig through the Scranton Peninsula and fill the the area where the casino is going to go.  We'll be expanded the boundaries of downtown!  :)

 

(yes, I'm joking)

 

Unless Gilbert plans on paying for this, NO WAY. Complete waste of money. Why can't they just build a garage at the corner of W. Eagle Ave. and W. 3rd and connect it via gerbil tube to the casino ACROSS THE STREET? If anyone in our government approves of this waste of MILLIONS of DOLLARS for PARKING SPACES I might start crying for crucifixion. 

These are not going to be surface lots.  It's going to be a multilevel parking garage underneath the casino.  And as much as some people hate parking, if you're going to have a facility that draws millions of visitors a year, they need a place to park.  I don't think downtown Cleveland has too much parking.  I think it has too many parking SURFACE LOTS, but not too many parking spaces.  It's a city - build up, not out.

 

Hey, as long as we're altering the river, let's just dig through the Scranton Peninsula and fill the the area where the casino is going to go.  We'll be expanded the boundaries of downtown!  :)

 

(yes, I'm joking)

 

 

What is that blue arrow point at?

The Cleveland Canal....  I like the sound of that!

Unless Gilbert plans on paying for this, NO WAY. Complete waste of money. Why can't they just build a garage at the corner of W. Eagle Ave. and W. 3rd and connect it via gerbil tube to the casino ACROSS THE STREET? If anyone in our government approves of this waste of MILLIONS of DOLLARS for PARKING SPACES I might start crying for crucifixion. 

 

And the Oscar goes to...........  Welcome to UrbanOhio gobigred.

What is that blue arrow point at?

 

That's what I was saying the route of the new river could be.

BTW, cleveland.com has an article on this that's free and you don't have to do crazy Google tricks to find:

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/11/dan_gilberts_casino_company_pr.html

 

"Some of the vessels that use the channel come within 30 feet of the bulkhead right now," said Alan Sisselman, who oversees Ohio permit applications for the Army Corps. "You can do the math. You take away 28 feet and you're down to two feet."

 

So you're saying it'll fit!

What is that blue arrow point at?

 

That's what I was saying the route of the new river could be.

 

Um OK.  Work on your visuals boo!  ;)

Do developers go out of their way to may projects difficult to get started in Cleveland?

Back to the drawing board.  FCE already tried to go this route when they were bidding on the CC/MM.  Not going to happen.

If the river alterations do not happen, is it a dealbreaker for the site?

If the river alterations do not happen, is it a dealbreaker for the site?

 

I don't think so.

If the river alterations do not happen, is it a dealbreaker for the site?

 

I don't think so.

 

Agree, not a deal breaker.  I have a feeling they are just doing a cost-benefit analysis here, as was mentioned previously.  When they're trying to decide if they should add another level or expand toward the river they need to understand the costs associated with both.  I have a feeling they have no idea what it would take to narrow the shipping channel.  This is their way of finding out.  They'll figure out it's too expensive and takes too much time and they'll come up with something else.

Question:  Is what they are seeking to 'narrow the river' or 'narrow the shipping channel'?  I would think that they could narrow the shipping channel without actually altering the actual river.

^I think the shipping channel and river are essentially coterminous because of the bulkhead.

Yeah.... but an overhang might cut down on the shipping channel without actually altering the physical form of the river.  The cost would be essentially zero.... whereas the cost of filling in the river and moving the bulkhead would be astronomical, I would have to assume.  I don't see how they can justify the latter on a cost-benefit analysis.

 

EDIT:  Nevermind... the PD article says that the plan would be to extend the bulkhead into the river.  It's a pipe dream if you ask me.

The way that I read this is that the cantilever of the building is the main driver for this. If they are talking about moving the bulkhead 29 ft at the most that would add an extra row of parking. No way is Gilbert going to OK spending $10M's for a row of parking. The parking appears to be secondary, unfortunately it's listed first in the article because that is what is going to placed on the land.

 

I am sure that they have done a cost benefit study on this option. It has to be based on the footprint of the building and the other optionswould to be add another level to the casino which would have costed more $$$.

 

Also they don't appear completely sold on the idea themselves.

 

exactly.

These are not going to be surface lots. It's going to be a multilevel parking garage underneath the casino. And as much as some people hate parking, if you're going to have a facility that draws millions of visitors a year, they need a place to park. I don't think downtown Cleveland has too much parking. I think it has too many parking SURFACE LOTS, but not too many parking spaces. It's a city - build up, not out.

 

Hey, as long as we're altering the river, let's just dig through the Scranton Peninsula and fill the the area where the casino is going to go. We'll be expanded the boundaries of downtown! :)

 

(yes, I'm joking)

 

 

It's not a joke at all. Relocating the river channel through the area you specific was proposed some decades ago as a solution to the tight turn at Collision Bend (we sure do have some fun names for transportation in Cleveland don't we? ie: Dead Man's Curve). Instead, the solution implemented was to expand the turning pool for ships at Collision Bend. I'll see if I can find some old maps of the proposals suggested back then.

^Cleveland Area History had a post last month about an earlier river straightening scheme from 1917:

http://www.clevelandareahistory.com/2010/10/new-cuyahoga-proposal-to-straighten.html

 

Pretty wild.

Strap's finding isn't what I was the thinking of (his was better). The proposal I was thinking of was around that same time if not a bit later, and it would avoided only Collision Bend by cutting across Scranton Peninsula. I could not find a map of it I thought I had.

 

Here is Collision Bend back in the day...

 

These are from 1927:

 

 

 

After the 1950s widening of Collision Bend. These are from 1962:

 

 

^Cleveland Area History had a post last month about an earlier river straightening scheme from 1917:

http://www.clevelandareahistory.com/2010/10/new-cuyahoga-proposal-to-straighten.html

 

Pretty wild.

 

WOW!!!  I can only begin to imagine how our city would have developed differently these past 100 years had the river been straightened/altered this much back then.  It would certainly solve a lot of transportation and development issues, but would it create environmental issues with erosion and pollution?  Guess we'll never know...

here we gooooo....

yup... let's keep it on topic.  gracias.

Sorry.  :oops:

It's interesting that they're going to such lengths to ensure ample parking. At first blush, it seems odd, since most casinos treat their parking facilities as loss leaders: they offer free parking with validation inside the casino, so it drives foot traffic into the casino from those who don't care to pay for parking, even if their destination is not the casino (they do this in Detroit). This seems like an awfully expensive loss leader.

There is a lot of money in parking

There probably is also some laws that require a certain amount of parking to be added for such a venue.  I know.... I know....

Is a large parking garage just completely out of the question? It should prevent building over the river. I know parking garages cost more money to upkeep, but narrowing the river probably costs a lot more.

To my knowledge, a 'large parking garage' is exactly what they are planning.

The real embarrassment to me is not whether this is a valid idea or not, but rather why it's just being brought up now?  The casino issue passed over a year ago, they narrowed the site location quite awhile back also.  Didn't anyone have basic site plans for these sites?  Someone must've had a number in mind of what sort of parking requirements they had.  Nobody tried comparing that to what was available?  This should've been brought up a LONG time ago and been answered by now.

 

It's just so inconceivable to me that this casino was pitched & passed to get people to work and create jobs.  By the time the stupid place starts construction, we'll have already recovered from this recession and entered another.

I think you're over reacting.

 

You can plan anything, but until you are a site owner you can only speculate.

 

This is normal or a project of this size.

 

More importantly, none of us are at the table in regard to the development so all we're doing is spinning our wheels.

 

Before this spins out of control and off tipic, can we discuss this development when something is announced?

Anybody hear any news out of this mornings meetings? http://www.wkyc.com/news/politics_govt/politics_article.aspx?storyid=157989&catid=130

i remember reading an article a few months back saying that figuring out the parking situation for the casino and towercity was the biggest issue with the site.  apparently that was true

Did anyone catch the story today on Cleveland .com about preliminary design work on the casino. There was a rendering attached to the article that showed the entrance to the casino on Huron across from Tower City. It described the casino as being built atop a 7 story parking deck that  included retail and restaurants. Evidently there is a 4 minute video that the peedee got a hold of showing the most recent design work. From the rendering it appeared as if the entrance fronted Huron and was about 5 story's tall.  I searched but the link is now dead, I knew I should have posted it then but I was busy watching the stupid Browns (as my dad calls them).

This was the link.    http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/11/our_first_look_at_dan_gilberts.html

GOT IT!

 

they never removed their mobile version

 

http://mobile.cleveland.com/advcleve/db_96574/contentdetail.htm;jsessionid=C19FCBF18083FB84784514786266AA7E?contentguid=pgPHOWLy&detailindex=3&pn=0&ps=5&full=true

In case it disappears again, here's the meat of it (good news, despite the poor comparison to a "mall"):

 

The design, which Rock Ventures says is preliminary, calls for a floor plan resembling that of a shopping mall, with a large central gambling area wrapped on the outer edges byshops, restaurants and lounges.

 

Those spaces, in turn, face outward toward Huron Road and the outdoor plazas, while also facing in on the casino's core.

 

It is one of at least two concepts for the casino, although Rock Ventures officials have not aired the second one yet.

here is another link to the image if interested

 

http://unlimitedwhispers.com/archives/11631

It will be weird when Huron feels more like a regular road instead of a bridge. Tower city food court will lose their view

^My hope is that food court would die a quick and timely death.

^My hope is that food court would die a quick and timely death.

 

For what?

Sorry not a big fan of food courts, especially in that part of the building. That space could be so much more. The food court could go somewhere else.

Sorry not a big fan of food courts, especially in that part of the building. That space could be so much more. The food court could go somewhere else.

 

Sorry didn't mean to have a bad tone. What do think could go their instead. Tower City probably wont want to part with their foodcourt, nor would the business people who work in the complex. And I cant think of another area where it could go