PLEASE READ!!!

***** ALL users will have to request a password reset BEFORE you will be able to log into the forum. See the thread in the forum issues section for further instructions. If you have issues with this, email us at admin@urbanohio.com. *****

Author Topic: Cleveland: Lakefront Development and News  (Read 7336 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Florida Guy

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2852
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #120 on: October 19, 2007, 12:54:11 PM »
No he's talking about MUSKY. Oh I'm slow, I got it. :-)
« Last Edit: October 19, 2007, 12:54:59 PM by Florida Guy »

Offline jpop

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2496
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #121 on: October 20, 2007, 10:14:07 AM »
Honestly, that's one of the ugliest hotels I know of. With or without the cornice and banners.

Offline Htsguy

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #122 on: October 20, 2007, 11:07:38 AM »
^Cannot say that I disagree but it was pretty much the standard Holiday Inn high rise design when it was built in the early 70's and you see them across the country.

Offline musky

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 5279
  • "Where there is no vision, the people perish..."
    • FB
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #123 on: October 20, 2007, 09:46:33 PM »
One only needs to look at Viking Hall ay CSU. It used to be a Holiday Inn. It looks pretty much the same as the HI Lakeside.

Offline jpop

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2496
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #124 on: October 21, 2007, 01:34:41 PM »
Yeah. It's unfortunate that Holiday Inn has such low standards on all of their buildings. Oh, well. What can you do?

Slap a cornice on and some red banners, I guess.

Offline MyTwoSense

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 29418
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #125 on: October 21, 2007, 01:36:43 PM »
Yeah. It's unfortunate that Holiday Inn has such low standards on all of their buildings. Oh, well. What can you do?

Slap a cornice on and some red banners, I guess.

It's a brand thing, and fault shouldn't be placed on Cleveland's shoulders.  I've been to some cities where the Holiday Inn looks like its stuck in 1967.  I have to say our Holiday Inn and Holiday Inn Express are VERY nice compared to most cities.

Offline jpop

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2496
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #126 on: October 21, 2007, 01:37:50 PM »
Doesn't Cleveland have design standards? I'm not asking this to pick a fight. Okay, maybe I am. But I'm genuinely ignorant on that one.

Offline MyTwoSense

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 29418
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #127 on: October 21, 2007, 01:48:37 PM »
Doesn't Cleveland have design standards? I'm not asking this to pick a fight. Okay, maybe I am. But I'm genuinely ignorant on that one.

Yes, its a two sided situation.  The brand has a "price point" to operate within.  They provided design standards within Cleveland's standards.

Also, Look at this from Intercontinental Hotel Groups point of view.  If they add or go above market to "improve" or "maintain" a particular property in an tight market where they have to fight hard for market share, (Downtown Cleveland is filled with a lot of mid-level hotels) do you "over improve" and raise the price of the room and risk losing customers for exterior aesthetics?

Most travelers are concerned with interior comfort.  Clean hotel, Rooms, Bathrooms, lobby and services offered (free wifi, etc.) than what the property looks like on the exterior.


Offline jpop

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2496
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #128 on: October 21, 2007, 01:58:47 PM »
Yeah. And I understand your point. I guess that I just get frustrated when I see mediocre design because it lowers the appeal of the building/brand or whatever is represented inside. At least it does for me. When I see a building with mediocre design immediately I think, "Oh, well they're probably not very good because that building does nothing to attract me to it." But maybe that's just because I'm a designer. Maybe it's because I'm a perfectionist and I'm hard on myself, and I project that onto other things. Maybe I should stop psychoanalyzing myself. I dunno.

But that's the reason that I hate mediocre design. Because for me, if a city is represented by bad design in whatever form, it, in my opinion, represents the city poorly as a whole and gives people a bad image. If a city wants to attract people with a higher class palate, they need to step up their design standards across the board and demand better. But that's just me, I guess.

If people want to forego those standards in the name of getting development done, then there's a trade-off. But it's not the kind of trade-off I want. But again, that's just me.

Offline MyTwoSense

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 29418
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #129 on: October 21, 2007, 02:07:17 PM »
Yeah. And I understand your point. I guess that I just get frustrated when I see mediocre design because it lowers the appeal of the building/brand or whatever is represented inside. At least it does for me. When I see a building with mediocre design immediately I think, "Oh, well they're probably not very good because that building does nothing to attract me to it." But maybe that's just because I'm a designer. Maybe it's because I'm a perfectionist and I'm hard on myself, and I project that onto other things. Maybe I should stop psychoanalyzing myself. I dunno.

But that's the reason that I hate mediocre design. Because for me, if a city is represented by bad design in whatever form, it, in my opinion, represents the city poorly as a whole and gives people a bad image. If a city wants to attract people with a higher class palate, they need to step up their design standards across the board and demand better. But that's just me, I guess.

If people want to forego those standards in the name of getting development done, then there's a trade-off. But it's not the kind of trade-off I want. But again, that's just me.

We'll since you've only seen a rendering, don't get your pressure up.  There are many times a rendering is presented, and it looks suspect, and the final product looks better than anticipated.

Offline MuRrAy HiLL

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 5835
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #130 on: December 11, 2007, 09:20:45 PM »
Well, we're at least talking about progress now.  Looks to be an extremely long progress unfortunitely.

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2007/12/port_recommends_move_from_down.html

Port recommends move from downtown to north of E. 55th
Posted by Tom Breckenridge
December 11, 2007 19:06PM


Top port officials recommend that the port relocate to a man-made peninsula north of the East 55th Street lakefront.

Members of the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority's maritime committee voted unanimously Tuesday to recommend the relocation, from the port's 80-acre site downtown to a new, 200-acre site...
« Last Edit: September 08, 2009, 10:10:46 AM by McCleveland »

Offline surfohio

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6700
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #131 on: December 12, 2007, 03:58:57 PM »
I thought that press release came out a week ago???  I thought the property adjacent to the airport made the most sense, but the FAA was apparently not going to allow it. Somebody on here posted a cool "transit hub" idea about it.

Yeesh, I know it's a big project but 20 years...very frustrating how slowly things move.

That's the crux of my disappointment with the lakefront plan as a whole.

Offline X

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 9569
    • Western Reserve Meadery
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #132 on: December 12, 2007, 08:34:02 PM »
I understand, but is it really fair to be disappointed or frustrated with it without showing how it could reasonably be done quicker?

Online KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 45349
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #133 on: December 12, 2007, 09:04:47 PM »
There is the product called rubber soil (heated mix of scrap tires and pulverized concrete from demolition sites) that can be used with dredgings to more rapidly expand the lake fill and get it done in a decade or so. But unless we want to dredge the Cuyahoga River to a 100-foot depth in a couple of years, there really is no way to speed up the process further that I'm aware of.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. -- Abraham Lincoln.

Offline X

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 9569
    • Western Reserve Meadery
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #134 on: December 12, 2007, 09:19:38 PM »
Is the 20 years considering that material's use?  In addition to the time it will take to create fill the dredging dump area, there is the time to actually build all the facilites.  That has to tack on a few years to that decade or so.

Online KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 45349
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #135 on: December 12, 2007, 09:34:46 PM »
To qualify for federal funds from the Army Corps of Engineers, any dredgings dump needs to have a multi-decade capacity. But it can also be combined with beach nourishment -- if the dredgings are cleaned of pollutants first. See my article at:

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=2591.msg70057#msg70057
America will never be destroyed from the outside. -- Abraham Lincoln.

Offline surfohio

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6700
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #136 on: December 13, 2007, 06:56:56 AM »
I understand, but is it really fair to be disappointed or frustrated with it without showing how it could reasonably be done quicker?

Do you mean the port relocation or lakefront plan in general or both?  I am sure your definition of "reasonable" may be different than mine. I'm just an average person that's frustrated by how long it will take to fix a coastline that has been horribly mistreated for 150 years. I find the timeline unacceptable. I hate waiting and that is a long long time for things to improve. I will buy everyone a shovel if that will help speed things up.  :-)

Seriously though, any one of us can come up with a far reaching, unrealistic, 50-100 year plan that looks terrific in a flashy powerpoint presentation. Problem is, over such a long stretch of time there are literally thousands of variables that will intervene over the course of that timeline.  As you've seen with the West Shoreway relocation, delays equal much higher costs as time goes on. The longer the city waits to fully capitalize on its waterfront the greater the damage.

The shoreline has to be recognized by the state of Ohio as damaged infrastructure that is in immediate need of restoration/redevelopment. A simple boardwalk along the coastline would be a realistic and timely first step. It would be a tremendous engine for retail and recreational development. And it could be constructed to coexist with the Port, bringing thousands access to view and experience the beautiful lake and striking views of our industrial and shipping heritage. The longer the city waits to fully capitalize on its waterfront the greater the damage.

« Last Edit: December 13, 2007, 08:41:32 AM by surfohio »

Offline MuRrAy HiLL

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 5835
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #137 on: December 13, 2007, 07:26:30 AM »
I do suppose in all retrospect, 20 years is much less than another 100-150 years.  I'm not sure if that's what you're implying as well surfohio, but it does put it in better perspective.  Building for the next generation is never a bad thing, and maybe that is something we have lacked here in recent history (EDIT: mostly meaning 60's and 70's ...seems like we're still recovering from the era!)
« Last Edit: December 13, 2007, 07:35:07 AM by MuRrAy HiLL »

Offline 8ShadesofGray

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2245
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #138 on: December 13, 2007, 07:31:36 AM »
The move could displace a state-owned marina at East 55th, but port officials said the site would be less expensive and offer more business-development opportunities than another relocation option -- a man-made island off the west breakwall.

From my perspective, this is a real shame. Would we be talking about just the marina portion of the park or the pier and the boardwalk as well? Maybe I'm being a NIMBY, and I recognize that something had to go, short of building offshore, but it is nice to have a park, bike trail and cafe (Andrea's) all centered around E. 55th, and the area is surprisingly well used. Not to mention, on a shoreline peppered with private, semi-exclusive yacht clubs, it's nice to have a public launching area.

Offline surfohio

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6700
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #139 on: December 13, 2007, 08:37:00 AM »
I do suppose in all retrospect, 20 years is much less than another 100-150 years.  I'm not sure if that's what you're implying as well surfohio, but it does put it in better perspective.  Building for the next generation is never a bad thing, and maybe that is something we have lacked here in recent history (EDIT: mostly meaning 60's and 70's ...seems like we're still recovering from the era!)

Good point, lack of foresight was the problem, but I am selfish and more motivated by what benefits me!!! The next generation will be listening to bad music, spray painting buildings, reminiscing about 60's-70's architecture and pushing the elderly (us) around all over the newly renovated lakefront.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2007, 08:38:52 AM by surfohio »

Offline X

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 9569
    • Western Reserve Meadery
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #140 on: December 13, 2007, 09:29:58 AM »
I understand, but is it really fair to be disappointed or frustrated with it without showing how it could reasonably be done quicker?

Do you mean the port relocation or lakefront plan in general or both? 

Either or both, the point really is the same.


I am sure your definition of "reasonable" may be different than mine. I'm just an average person that's frustrated by how long it will take to fix a coastline that has been horribly mistreated for 150 years. I find the timeline unacceptable. I hate waiting and that is a long long time for things to improve. I will buy everyone a shovel if that will help speed things up.  :-)
 

I'm sure our definitions of reasonable differ, but that's irrelevent.  Reason tends to be pretty impersonal as compared to emotional response. Emotionally, I want to see it done tomorrow or the next day.  Reasonably, I realize that building a whole new area of fill dirt is going to take some longer amount of time, apparently 20 years.  If someone can show how it can be done faster in a reasonable manner- cost/suitability/etc, then let's do it.  But just saying "that's taking too long" doesn't get us anywhere.


Seriously though, any one of us can come up with a far reaching, unrealistic, 50-100 year plan that looks terrific in a flashy powerpoint presentation. Problem is, over such a long stretch of time there are literally thousands of variables that will intervene over the course of that timeline.  As you've seen with the West Shoreway relocation, delays equal much higher costs as time goes on. The longer the city waits to fully capitalize on its waterfront the greater the damage.

I'm sure all of us could come up with a far reaching, unrealistic 50-100 year plan that looks terrific in a flashy powerpoint presentation.  The question you raise though is if any of us can come up with a short term, realistic plan to open the lakefront up to greater public use.  That's the rub.


The shoreline has to be recognized by the state of Ohio as damaged infrastructure that is in immediate need of restoration/redevelopment. A simple boardwalk along the coastline would be a realistic and timely first step. It would be a tremendous engine for retail and recreational development. And it could be constructed to coexist with the Port, bringing thousands access to view and experience the beautiful lake and striking views of our industrial and shipping heritage. The longer the city waits to fully capitalize on its waterfront the greater the damage.

That sounds nice, but I'm not sure how we quickly/easily get a boardwalk across an industrial port, across a river, across security obsessed marinas, etc.  And I'm not so sure that if you throw a boardwalk down there without supporting land uses that it will be used by the public.

Offline 8ShadesofGray

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2245
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #141 on: December 13, 2007, 09:57:53 AM »
That sounds nice, but I'm not sure how we quickly/easily get a boardwalk across an industrial port, across a river, across security obsessed marinas, etc.  And I'm not so sure that if you throw a boardwalk down there without supporting land uses that it will be used by the public.

I'm not sure about that ... there are a ton of people down there on the existing (repair-required) boardwalk during spring and summer months ... the little short stretch just beyond the public pier typically has 10-15 people fishing off of the boardwalk on weekends ... another 10-15 are usually fishing along the pier. On bike trips from E. 36th down Marginal Road, up the lakefront bike trail to MLK, I also usually saw an average of 50 or so people cycling, walking or running the trail on any given trip (obviously, a good deal more during Walk and Roll, Red Ribbon Ride, Parade the Circle, etc.).

That being said, I agree ... you won't hit the volume of people you might be inclined to without expanding additional public use around a boardwalk.

Offline punch

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4486
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #142 on: December 13, 2007, 10:05:48 AM »
Is the marina at Whiskey Island still used?  Is it owned by the state?

Perhaps they can relocate the state marina to Whiskey Island. 

Offline Avogadro

  • Great American Tower 665'
  • ***
  • Posts: 538
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #143 on: December 13, 2007, 11:10:54 AM »
Is the marina at Whiskey Island still used?  Is it owned by the state?

Perhaps they can relocate the state marina to Whiskey Island. 
It's still being used, it's owned by Cuyahoga County, there are empty docks.

Overall, there ought to be enough capacity among the several marinas in Cuyahoga County to accommodate boaters.  The problem is that the fees will be significantly higher, even in the less-pleasant private marinas.

Offline surfohio

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6700
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #144 on: December 13, 2007, 05:54:40 PM »
I'm sure our definitions of reasonable differ, but that's irrelevent.  Reason tends to be pretty impersonal as compared to emotional response. Emotionally, I want to see it done tomorrow or the next day.  Reasonably, I realize that building a whole new area of fill dirt is going to take some longer amount of time, apparently 20 years.  If someone can show how it can be done faster in a reasonable manner- cost/suitability/etc, then let's do it.  But just saying "that's taking too long" doesn't get us anywhere.
[/quote]

Putting so much stock into waiting for the Ports relocation is what I find unreasonable. In my opinion, that aspect is a major flaw in the Lakefront Plan. More emphasis should be put into coexisting with the Port rather than this billion dollar relocation. There are examples of mixed-use residential/retail/industrial waterfronts elsewhere in America. It's not hard to imagine a development like Stonebridge building right up alongside the port. As for boardwalks and access, the Port can grant easements across its property much faster and cheaper than building an entire new island.

That sounds nice, but I'm not sure how we quickly/easily get a boardwalk across an industrial port, across a river, across security obsessed marinas, etc.  And I'm not so sure that if you throw a boardwalk down there without supporting land uses that it will be used by the public.
[/quote]

No you're right it would not be easy. But siimply giving the public something we've been denied for so long, access to the waters edge, would alone work wonders and be a major accomplishment. The boardwalk would not have to be continuously supported by adjacent development, but by pockets of retail and residential, just like an urban/coastal version of the towpath trail. Right now Whiskey Island, North Coast Harbor, edgewater park, Flats planned boardwalk, etc. would be the dots to help connect and form a user friendly walkable, bikeable waterfront.


Offline jpop

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2496
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #145 on: February 22, 2008, 08:21:54 AM »
Some Steamship William B. Mather volunteers disgruntled after Great Lakes Science Center merger
Science center has new vision of ship's role
Friday, February 22, 2008
Jim Nichols

Sixteen months after the Great Lakes Science Center took the helm of the Steamship William G. Mather Museum, the ship's new owners are maneuvering along a new course.

Initially, at least, the floating museum's voyage is proving a bit rocky: A post-merger culture clash with the new owners has some longtime Mather volunteers abandoning ship.

The science center has a grand vision for converting the 83-year-old retired freighter it acquired in October 2006 from a museum of lakes shipping to an interactive 618-foot-long wing of the parent institution.

The Mather's new role will be a celebration of much broader connections between humans and the Great Lakes, said Bryan Kwapil, the science center's vice president of operations.

The transformation starts this spring, when work begins on a $2.7 million, glass-enclosed walkway connecting the shore-side science center to the acquisition moored 100 yards to the north. Then, in a year or so, the science center will launch a fund-raising campaign to pay for a host of new lakes-oriented exhibits, Kwapil said. The Mather will house those in the cavernous bulk-cargo holds that once carried 14,000 tons of iron ore per voyage...
« Last Edit: September 08, 2009, 10:15:15 AM by McCleveland »

Offline MayDay

  • Administrator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 10307
    • Cleveland Skyscrapers
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #146 on: February 22, 2008, 09:38:20 AM »
"But he and Gerber believe the science center's staff should have "come in with hats in hands" to curry favor with the volunteers. Instead, science center staff told them to apply for the volunteer jobs they themselves had created and performed.

"After 17 years, they were asking for references," Durica fumed. "It was an insult.""


Should the science center have done a better job in befriending the volunteers? Probably. But as a public and non-profit entity, the Science Center isn't out of line for requiring the volunteers to follow procedures - including filling out paperwork; it's called accountability.

Offline jpop

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2496
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #147 on: February 22, 2008, 09:49:34 AM »
I think Kwapil's statement at the end of the article is kind of an asshole thing to say, and I can empathize with the volunteers with his lack of tactfulness on this matter, even though I support what the Science Center wants to do:

"These few individuals like to think they're the heart and soul of the Mather and the ship won't survive without them," Kwapil said.

"Well, that ship's been here longer than any of us, and it'll be there long after we're all gone."

I think with that, he's kinda brushing off the contribution they've made to the Mather. There might be some truth to what he's saying, but not the most gracious thing to say to people who aren't getting paid to support a city attraction.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2008, 09:51:43 AM by jpop »

Offline MayDay

  • Administrator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 10307
    • Cleveland Skyscrapers
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #148 on: February 22, 2008, 09:52:20 AM »
The thing is - if the Science Center *didn't* make them register/file paperwork, etc., Carl Monday (or his ilk) would be there the first time something bad happened with "The Science Center is Wasting YOUR Tax Dollars!!!". And while it comes across as cruel, what Kwapil said is the honest-to-god truth. Kudos to the volunteers for everything they've done but "memento mori", my friends.

Offline jpop

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2496
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #149 on: March 23, 2008, 11:41:28 AM »
Port Authority's big move gives hope for a new wave
by Steven Litt / Plain Dealer Architecture Critic
Sunday March 23, 2008, 12:00 AM


Cleveland, a city with miles of ugly, neglected and underused waterfront on a river and a Great Lake, has done precious little in recent decades to capitalize on its watery blessings.

One reason is a lack of leaders with the guts and vision to make big plans and stick around long enough to make them stick. But maybe, just maybe, the city's relationship to the Cuyahoga River and Lake Erie is about to change dramatically for the better.

Adam Wasserman, one year into his new job as president and chief executive officer of the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority, has just pulled off one of the biggest city-planning coups in decades...

More at:  http://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2008/03/port_authoritys_big_move_gives.html
« Last Edit: September 08, 2009, 10:18:47 AM by McCleveland »