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: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)  (Read 2339 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline ragarcia

  • Huntington Tower 330'
  • **
  • Posts: 186
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #60 on: July 20, 2007, 11:50:01 AM »
I'm glad someone has the vision to develop those parking lots, I remember when the building that was there got demolished and I always thought, why the heck put a parking lot there when you can put housing and retail/restaurants instead.  The west bank (even though technically this is sandwiched between the north and south sides of the river) is going to rock.

« Last Edit: July 20, 2007, 02:08:53 PM by the pope »

Offline the pope

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 5771
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #61 on: July 20, 2007, 02:09:50 PM »
All discussion regarding the Strip District has been moved back to

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=13073.msg201659#msg201659

Offline clvlndr

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6368
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #62 on: July 20, 2007, 08:43:25 PM »
This sounds nice; I hope it get's done but let's be realistic.  Except for certain projects -- Stonebridge, Ave Dist, and hopefully soon on a Flats East Bank near you, Wolstein (that's gone quiet lately, what'z up over there?) -- a lot of projects are struggling.  If things had gone as planned,  Marous' District Park would be openning Phase one about now; there've seemingly been umpteen planned "Courthouse Square" condo projects that have disappeared into the netherlands, and even in booming Ohio City, the Jay Loft project is stopped in slow sales construction limbo (and that's largely adaptive reuse with some infill/new construction) ... In case you haven't noticed, in most towns, housing -- particularly new start condo/1-family housing is still slumping.  In downtown, while we've had fantastic adaptive reuse, totally new construction has been few and far between and seemily all of it one location: at Stonebridge.

I'm pulling for Zaremba over at Avenue District and the others, but it's tough right now.  Canal Basin sounds nice, and I'd obviously loooove seeing it, but right now I'd just be happy with the stuff already out there getting done downtown (and in town)... and that includes 515 E. Euclid, where the planned condo tower is... well, somewhere in the future, I guess... last I looked there isn't any ground-level retail there, yet.  Maybe when ECP finally finishes there will...

Offline jpop

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2496
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #63 on: January 10, 2009, 07:02:15 AM »
[I cannot, for the life of me, find the West Bank Flats thread .. the search feature on this site is frustrating. I literally spent about 10 minutes looking. So if anyone can move this post to the correct thread, feel free.]

'Flats Connections Plan' would add parks, trails on west bank site
Posted by Steven Litt/Plain Dealer Architecture Critic
January 09, 2009 22:50PM


Click here to download PDF .

The gray industrial landscape and parking lots on the west bank of the Flats, now edged with housing and nightclubs, could soon be crisscrossed with parks, trails and green spaces.

The new "Flats Connections Plan," completed by the nonprofit organizations ParkWorks, Cleveland Public Art and Building Cleveland by Design, shows how an abandoned railway and the vacant strip under the Main Avenue Bridge could become playgrounds, bikeways and artificial wetlands.

"We think there's a huge opportunity to realize this in the short term," said Ann Zoller, director of ParkWorks. She said major elements of the proposal could be achieved within several years, despite the recent economic downturn and the sudden halt of major projects, including the $522 million Flats East Bank development...

more at:  http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2009/01/flats_connections_plan_would_a.html
« Last Edit: September 11, 2009, 02:08:30 PM by McCleveland »

Offline Oldmanladyluck

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 1817
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #64 on: January 10, 2009, 10:18:56 AM »
What a bunch of dumb @sses on cleveland.whatever.  Unbelievable.

I really like this plan.  If and when Forest City decides to develop their portion of the peninsula, this could be a great asset for them.  Here's hoping that federal dollars will come to the rescue of the hillside along Irishtown Bend. 

Offline jpop

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2496
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #65 on: January 10, 2009, 11:08:15 AM »
Yeah. I hope so, too.

I really hate depending on so many federal dollars, though. I guess these are the times in which we live right now, but I'd prefer there to be some other way, I think.

Offline MayDay

  • Administrator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 10307
    • Cleveland Skyscrapers
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #66 on: January 10, 2009, 04:23:20 PM »
What a bunch of dumb @sses on cleveland.whatever.  Unbelievable.

I really like this plan.  If and when Forest City decides to develop their portion of the peninsula, this could be a great asset for them.  Here's hoping that federal dollars will come to the rescue of the hillside along Irishtown Bend. 

Off-topic - I absolutely LOVE it when people trolls on cleveland.com talk smack about this forum. It simply reinforces the notion that UrbanOhio isn't a place for mudslinging cowards - diverse viewpoints, yes. But mudslinging cowards and trolls? Nope.

Anyway, I think this plan sounds good in theory and I'm really intrigued to see if shoring up the Irishtown Bend hillside includes stabilizing the land for possible development.

Offline jpop

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2496
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #67 on: January 10, 2009, 05:30:10 PM »
Off-topic - I absolutely LOVE it when people trolls on cleveland.com talk smack about this forum. It simply reinforces the notion that UrbanOhio isn't a place for mudslinging cowards - diverse viewpoints, yes. But mudslinging cowards and trolls? Nope.

I'm very thankful for UO. I think it's such a timely thing, and it's so helpful in terms of banding people together to actually dare to love their city and dream about moving it forward, individually and as a city. Cleveland needs this, a contingent of people who are proud of their city and aren't ashamed of that pride. In its own way, this can be a dramatic tool in terms of getting the word out that, even though it has its problems like every city does, Cleveland is a great place.

If people on cleveland.com want to whine and moan and stew in their self-pity and lazy bitching, then let them for all I care. But they're the ones who are responsible for Cleveland going downhill .. just as much as any corrupt city leader that might be out there.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2009, 05:35:46 PM by jpop »

Offline mrnyc

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 12873
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #68 on: January 10, 2009, 10:09:53 PM »
great plan. all kinds of awesome. obama make it so.

Offline surfohio

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6700
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #69 on: January 15, 2009, 04:22:01 PM »
Great to see this article in print. An idea that's long overdue, and to be honest I'm very frustrated that it would take so long to become a reality.

Forest City, please take the lead on this project.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2009, 04:22:40 PM by surfohio »

Offline MyTwoSense

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 29418
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #70 on: January 15, 2009, 08:00:08 PM »
Great to see this article in print. An idea that's long overdue, and to be honest I'm very frustrated that it would take so long to become a reality.

Forest City, please take the lead on this project.

Oh hell no.

Offline peabody99

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 3049
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #71 on: January 16, 2009, 04:54:11 PM »
I have been hearing about this for at least three years, but am missing what is being done to move this along. It would be HUGE for the city to have lake access this close to downtown. As a resident, I hate going all the way out to Edgewater to get to Whiskey Island only to see my home a stones throw away once I am there.

I have found ways to walk to Whiskey Island from the flats but it involves tresspassing, traversing homeless encampments, running from stray dogs, scaling rusty fences, hiding from freight trains, and other unsavory flats-life suprises. To be able to access this gem legitimately is a dream. 

Offline 327

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6517
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #72 on: January 17, 2009, 01:26:53 AM »
I have found ways to walk to Whiskey Island from the flats but it involves tresspassing, traversing homeless encampments, running from stray dogs, scaling rusty fences, hiding from freight trains, and other unsavory flats-life suprises.

That actually sounds awesome.

Offline w28th

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2210
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #73 on: January 17, 2009, 09:56:31 AM »
I was going to say the same thing.

Offline ExSpectator36

  • Kettering Tower 408'
  • **
  • Posts: 262
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #74 on: January 17, 2009, 01:48:45 PM »
I have been hearing about this for at least three years, but am missing what is being done to move this along. It would be HUGE for the city to have lake access this close to downtown. As a resident, I hate going all the way out to Edgewater to get to Whiskey Island only to see my home a stones throw away once I am there.

I have found ways to walk to Whiskey Island from the flats but it involves tresspassing, traversing homeless encampments, running from stray dogs, scaling rusty fences, hiding from freight trains, and other unsavory flats-life suprises. To be able to access this gem legitimately is a dream. 

I agree 100%.  I also hate having to go all the way to edgewater to really get to the lake that I can see from my apartment windows.

Offline peabody99

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 3049
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #75 on: January 17, 2009, 03:17:21 PM »
I have found ways to walk to Whiskey Island from the flats but it involves tresspassing, traversing homeless encampments, running from stray dogs, scaling rusty fences, hiding from freight trains, and other unsavory flats-life suprises.

That actually sounds awesome.

well the 10 year tom boy in me thinks it is awesome too. :-)  But the grown up women feels a little leery.

Offline surfohio

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6700
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #76 on: January 18, 2009, 01:53:57 PM »


I have found ways to walk to Whiskey Island from the flats but it involves tresspassing, traversing homeless encampments, running from stray dogs, scaling rusty fences, hiding from freight trains, and other unsavory flats-life suprises. To be able to access this gem legitimately is a dream. 

Ha ha, welcome to our coastline everybody.

Offline surfohio

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6700
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #77 on: January 18, 2009, 07:05:45 PM »
All right MTS...

Please Forest City, please stand in the way of this project. Or at least continue to leave your riverside property looking like a neglected wasteland. Do nothing at all....continue to offer vague, indifferent, albeit slightly optimistic sounding commentary on the whole plan!!!



Great to see this article in print. An idea that's long overdue, and to be honest I'm very frustrated that it would take so long to become a reality.

Forest City, please take the lead on this project.

Oh hell no.

Offline jpop

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2496
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #78 on: January 18, 2009, 07:15:34 PM »
All right MTS...

Please Forest City, please stand in the way of this project. Or at least continue to leave your riverside property looking like a neglected wasteland. Do nothing at all....continue to offer vague, indifferent, albeit slightly optimistic sounding commentary on the whole plan!!!

Which is exactly what they've given us until now. So why the hell would we want them doing this if they just don't seem to be all that committed to Cleveland right now?

Offline surfohio

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6700
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #79 on: January 22, 2009, 07:33:20 AM »
You're answering your own question!!

That's my point JPOP, they haven't been committed to Cleveland, or even their own properties. It benefits everyone if they could, at the very least, take the lead on cleaning up their own yard and the areas surrounding.

« Last Edit: January 22, 2009, 07:34:56 AM by surfohio »

Offline jpop

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2496
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #80 on: January 22, 2009, 08:16:25 AM »
You're answering your own question!!

That's my point JPOP, they haven't been committed to Cleveland, or even their own properties. It benefits everyone if they could, at the very least, take the lead on cleaning up their own yard and the areas surrounding.

Yeah, I understand, and I share that feeling. However, based on their more recent record, I just wouldn't trust them to do that well.

Offline MyTwoSense

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 29418
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #81 on: January 22, 2009, 11:33:04 AM »
You're answering your own question!!

That's my point JPOP, they haven't been committed to Cleveland, or even their own properties. It benefits everyone if they could, at the very least, take the lead on cleaning up their own yard and the areas surrounding.

Yeah, I understand, and I share that feeling. However, based on their more recent record, I just wouldn't trust them to do that well.
We don't agree on much, but this I agree with.  We should not have to ask them to invest in their HQ city.  They should do this on their own.
 
In addition, the FEB is another developers active project.  If they wanted in, why didn't they get in from the get-go?
 
FC can kiss my culo!

Offline jpop

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2496
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #82 on: March 19, 2009, 06:00:51 PM »
Future Flats: Green industrial play spaces
Submitted by Marc Lefkowitz  |  Last edited March 13, 2009 - 10:01am
http://www.gcbl.org/blog/marc-lefkowitz/future-flats-green-industrial-play-spaces

(Click here to see a virtual tour of the C&M rail trail).

Converting old infrastructure—rusted freight rail lines and ill-used parking lots—into exciting recreational and green spaces is driving the latest re-invention of the Cleveland Flats. The city and a group of nonprofit organizations have been working on makeover plans that reflect new values—healthy living and a more nuanced approach to the icons of the past, which the Flats has in spades—making them part of a package of design elements for a city founded on the fires of industry.

The Cuyahoga & Mahoning rail-to-trail project is a showpiece example of this new approach in the Flats. The C&M was awarded $1.3 million from the Clean Ohio Fund to acquire, uncover and build 1.3 miles of trail and parkway where an old rail line is buried.

The trail begins south of the rail line where the West Bank wraps around Irishtown Bend – near Hooples and Columbus Road. Here, the trail serves a dual purpose: Connecting to (and extending) the Towpath Trail to the lakefront and stabilizing a crumbling section of Riverbed Street with a “bio-engineered” riverbank. A new, treelined bike trail will hug the river and thread below the white granite arch of the Detroit-Superior Bridge.

Just ahead of you is the gray stone arch of the Old Detroit Bridge. Today you'll see a passage choked with dirt and scrub brush; the future holds something very different for the C&M rail line, which forms a back alley for Stonebridge. Building Cleveland by Design (BCbD) has developed plans to transform it into a bike trail and green space. Like the well-appointed Promenade Plantee enjoyed by Parisians, this cool urban space will live alongside condos and retail planned by K&D, the developers of Stonebridge and connect the West Bank to Whiskey Island. The County Engineer will likely do some of the heavy lifting—it owns an intersecting strip of land under the Main Avenue Bridge which BCbD has designs for a skate park, a boardwalk and wetlands that capture rain water spilling off the bridge.

The C&M trail will connect the Towpath Trail at its southern end to the proposed Canal Basin Park and, with a little luck and the right negotiation, to a new bridge over the river to Wendy Park, the natural area of Whiskey Island (wouldn’t it be poetic if the industrial owner of the land on which the bridge is to be built donates it to the city in memory of Ed Hauser?) on the northern end.

Ohio Canal Corridor displayed plans for Canal Basin Park at a public meeting on March 11. The vision is for a 21-acre park and trail system under the Detroit-Superior Bridge where the river bends to form a thumb of land. The park will mark the triumphant completion of the 100-mile Towpath Trail from Akron to Cleveland. The final leg into the Flats may be years off, but the plan is for the trail to ascend from the hardscrabble Scranton Peninsula over the Cuyahoga River on the blue-beamed Carter Road lift bridge, which will lead to a flat, riverbed landscape of native prairie grasses and paths tread by scullers, cyclists and the lunch crowd walking to the Flatiron. Imagine an urban green space nestled among the silos, abandoned train engines and steel girded jackknifed bridges frozen in place.

The final segment of the Towpath Trail from Tremont into the Flats could tap into federal stimulus funds set up to make our transportation network more open and safe for biking and walking? Ohio will receive $56 million from the stimulus bill for transportation enhancements, says Cleveland City Planner Marty Cader, and, depending on how much Cleveland gets, that will determine how many bike/ped projects get funded from the city’s priority list, which includes: the Downtown Bike Station, Train Avenue Bikeway, Lake (Erie) to (Shaker) Lakes Trail, Kerruish Park Trail, Dike 14 Trail and the Towpath Trail.

As a rule of thumb, it costs $100 per foot to engineer bike trails (there are 5,280 feet in a mile). Construction costs and the level of scrutiny (the environmental impact studies) attached to federal funds is much higher, thus, the $7.9 million price tag of the next section of the Towpath to be built from Harvard Road to Steelyard Commons.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2009, 06:01:49 PM by jpop »

Offline surfohio

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6700
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #83 on: March 20, 2009, 11:37:55 AM »
"The County Engineer will likely do some of the heavy lifting—it owns an intersecting strip of land under the Main Avenue Bridge which BCbD has designs for a skate park, a boardwalk and wetlands that capture rain water spilling off the bridge."

Skate park...boardwalk....wetlands....

People, we are in danger of being a vibrant, coastal city!!  :clap:
« Last Edit: March 21, 2009, 12:50:30 PM by surfohio »

Offline 3231

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6451
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #84 on: March 20, 2009, 11:44:01 AM »
The only thing about the above article is that it says the Clean Ohio money would go for acquisition and construction. It is only enough for acquisition. Finding the money to construct that thing is a much greater task.

Offline ogibbigo

  • Metropolitan Tower 224'
  • *
  • Posts: 93
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #85 on: November 10, 2009, 03:58:35 AM »
Closest related thread I could find, I know people keep talking about bridges to join the west bank with the rest of downtown, but with the heavy river traffic and cost of manning/operating some sort of moveable bridge, wouldn't some sort of cable car system, i.e. NYC/Roosevelt island be more practicle?

Offline MyTwoSense

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 29418
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #86 on: November 10, 2009, 05:01:27 AM »
Closest related thread I could find, I know people keep talking about bridges to join the west bank with the rest of downtown, but with the heavy river traffic and cost of manning/operating some sort of moveable bridge, wouldn't some sort of cable car system, i.e. NYC/Roosevelt island be more practicle?

No, as I would guess:
  • Who would own, operate, thats a huge investment with a little ROI or functionality
  • The cost to maintain would be, extremely high
  • The property lots you need to build that would be skyhigh
  • Patronage, would be very low.
  • No connection to the transportation network

Offline Avogadro

  • Great American Tower 665'
  • ***
  • Posts: 538
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #87 on: November 10, 2009, 09:06:03 AM »
Closest related thread I could find, I know people keep talking about bridges to join the west bank with the rest of downtown, but with the heavy river traffic and cost of manning/operating some sort of moveable bridge, wouldn't some sort of cable car system, i.e. NYC/Roosevelt island be more practicle?

No, as I would guess:
  • Who would own, operate, thats a huge investment with a little ROI or functionality
  • The cost to maintain would be, extremely high
  • The property lots you need to build that would be skyhigh
  • Patronage, would be very low.
  • No connection to the transportation network

At the risk of contradicting you, I think that operating a gondola across the river might be less expensive, especially if you could suspend it from the Main Avenue Bridge or alongside the Norfolk Southern "iron curtain" bridge.  Picture something akin to the Newport Transporter Bridge but instead of constructing new towers or transporting vehicles, you were just moving pedestrians and bicyclists and you remained at the level of the riverbanks. It could be tied to the Towpath Trail and future Lakefront Trails. The tender of the iron curtain bridge could also tend the pedestrian gondola.

Offline MyTwoSense

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 29418
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #88 on: November 10, 2009, 09:10:43 AM »
Closest related thread I could find, I know people keep talking about bridges to join the west bank with the rest of downtown, but with the heavy river traffic and cost of manning/operating some sort of moveable bridge, wouldn't some sort of cable car system, i.e. NYC/Roosevelt island be more practicle?

No, as I would guess:
  • Who would own, operate, thats a huge investment with a little ROI or functionality
  • The cost to maintain would be, extremely high
  • The property lots you need to build that would be skyhigh
  • Patronage, would be very low.
  • No connection to the transportation network

At the risk of contradicting you, I think that operating a gondola across the river might be less expensive, especially if you could suspend it from the Main Avenue Bridge or alongside the Norfolk Southern "iron curtain" bridge.  Picture something akin to the Newport Transporter Bridge but instead of constructing new towers or transporting vehicles, you were just moving pedestrians and bicyclists and you remained at the level of the riverbanks. It could be tied to the Towpath Trail and future Lakefront Trails. The tender of the iron curtain bridge could also tend the pedestrian gondola.

I think the water taxi should come back.

Offline X

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 9569
    • Western Reserve Meadery
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #89 on: November 10, 2009, 09:28:46 AM »
I think the water taxi returning would be awesome!