Author Topic: Cleveland: Lakefront Development and News  (Read 512093 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline X

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7327
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #140 on: December 13, 2007, 10:19:10 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

  • 1450'-Willis Tower
  • *********
  • Posts: 1500
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #141 on: December 13, 2007, 10:47:05 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

  • UO Supporting Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3907
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #142 on: December 13, 2007, 10:55:00 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. 
Originally Punch, then CleveChiNola, now back to Punch.

Offline Avogadro

  • 574'-Carew Tower
  • ****
  • Posts: 424
  • Bleeding a trail through the lens
    • Slavic Village Development
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #143 on: December 13, 2007, 12:00:06 PM »
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.
Christopher Alvarado, Slavic Village Development

Offline surfohio

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 6258
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #144 on: December 13, 2007, 06:43:52 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

  • 1450'-Willis Tower
  • *********
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 1532
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #145 on: February 22, 2008, 09:11:06 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, 11:04:27 AM by McCleveland »

Offline MayDay

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6931
  • The HBIC from the CLE
    • Cleveland Skyscrapers
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #146 on: February 22, 2008, 10:27:32 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

  • 1450'-Willis Tower
  • *********
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 1532
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #147 on: February 22, 2008, 10:38:46 AM »
I think Kwapil's statement at the end of the article is kind of an a$$hole 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, 10:40:55 AM by jpop »

Offline MayDay

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6931
  • The HBIC from the CLE
    • Cleveland Skyscrapers
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #148 on: February 22, 2008, 10:41:32 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

  • 1450'-Willis Tower
  • *********
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 1532
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #149 on: March 23, 2008, 12:30:40 PM »
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, 11:07:59 AM by McCleveland »

Offline X

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7327
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #150 on: March 23, 2008, 05:26:10 PM »
Why do we need another planning process for the Lakefront?  We just underwent one which forsaw the port moving from that land and suggested what development should be there.  This was not unforseen!  I can see reassessing the industrial area that the port is moving to in order to ensure that it is done right, but I wouldn't throw the entire lakefront plan out.

Offline 3231

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4269
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #151 on: March 23, 2008, 10:13:38 PM »
I think that the planning process would become much more site specific. The old plan was pretty generic and simply said that the area should become residential. It provided a street grid, but it was more of a suggestion of an eventual direction. I think that this is a great way to be thinking.

Offline Firenze98

  • 665'-Queen City Square
  • ******
  • Posts: 987
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #152 on: March 24, 2008, 08:35:57 AM »
"It's easy to view the Eaton proposal as the first step toward a rapid development of other single-purpose corporate "campuses" pressing even closer to the water's edge. But Wasserman, who supports the Eaton move, said he doesn't want that to happen."

Thank you Mr. Wasserman.  Many of us feel the same.
"All architecture is shelter, all great architecture is the design of space that contains, cuddles, exhalts or stimulates the persons in that space."
Philip Johnson

“Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!”  
Leonardo da Vinci

AIA, LEED BD+C, EDAC

Offline X

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7327
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #153 on: March 24, 2008, 10:48:34 AM »
I think that the planning process would become much more site specific. The old plan was pretty generic and simply said that the area should become residential. It provided a street grid, but it was more of a suggestion of an eventual direction. I think that this is a great way to be thinking.

Ahh, you're right.  After reading your post I see how this is planning at a different level than what was done already.

Offline surfohio

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 6258
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #154 on: March 25, 2008, 10:02:42 PM »
"We'd like to bring in some talent to stir people's imagination," he said, "folks that have worked on waterfronts in Sydney [Australia] and Barcelona [Spain]. What are the greatest cities that have had an opportunity like ours? Why don't we bring those folks in?"

I find this very refreshing. Bring in the world's best to renew the waterfront. Experienced planners and engineers with a proven track record, specifically  in coastal restoration. 

No offense, but I think the makeover we require is a feat of coastal planning well beyond what the locals can provide. And certainly well beyond what I've seen from the Army Corps of Engineers.

Offline Boreas

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 2019
  • The wooden shoe conspiracy
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #155 on: March 27, 2008, 09:25:56 AM »
Developing the current port property at the lake is going to require building sewer infrastructure that is going to require a lot of uphill pumping.  That means energy.  Just sayin'.

Hey, can they make it less windy there in December?

Offline KJP

  • Premium Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37526
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
    • All Aboard Ohio
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #156 on: March 27, 2008, 09:43:13 AM »
Developing the current port property at the lake is going to require building sewer infrastructure that is going to require a lot of uphill pumping.  That means energy.  Just sayin'.

Hey, can they make it less windy there in December?

Why? Use the wind to power a pump to get the sewage up the hill. Problem solved.
"Greater Cleveland is last in the country in number of jobs accessible in typical commute distance, creating a huge drag on economy and more air & water pollution."-- Vibrant NEO

Offline Boreas

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 2019
  • The wooden shoe conspiracy
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #157 on: March 27, 2008, 10:15:31 AM »
Need high-torque multiblade windmills like those that are used to pump water on farms.

Offline X

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7327
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #158 on: March 27, 2008, 10:27:17 AM »
Developing the current port property at the lake is going to require building sewer infrastructure that is going to require a lot of uphill pumping.  That means energy.  Just sayin'.

Hey, can they make it less windy there in December?

If they align the streets right, yes, they can cut down on the wind some.

Offline gotribe

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 2045
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #159 on: March 27, 2008, 10:42:47 AM »
Developing the current port property at the lake is going to require building sewer infrastructure that is going to require a lot of uphill pumping.  That means energy.  Just sayin'.

Hey, can they make it less windy there in December?

The current port property is currently developed and should have high capacity infrastructure for the work that is being performed there.  I could see some upgrades needed due to new infrastructure.

Offline theguv

  • 574'-Carew Tower
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • my friends usually call me John
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #160 on: March 27, 2008, 11:01:43 AM »

Why? Use the wind to power a pump to get the sewage up the hill. Problem solved.

Great idea!  If engineered with some forethought, there would be limited need to convert energy from mechanical to electrical, which would greatly reduce energy loss.  I've often imagined a similar scenario using mechanic energy from a wind mill at the top of EdgeHill in ClvHts to power a bicycle towline to assist cyclists up EdgeHill!
"The way in which we experience and interpret the world obviously depends very much indeed on the kind of ideas that fill our minds. If they are mainly small, weak, superficial, and incoherent, life will appear insipid, uninteresting, petty, and chaotic."
-E.F. Schumacher

Offline surfohio

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 6258
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #161 on: April 22, 2008, 09:18:26 AM »
Mayor Jackson is discussing the Lakefront on WCPN this a.m.

In a nutshell:

He said he wants this city to embrace the water, for Cleveland to be a city that faces north, rather than east to west.

Touted his decisions on keeping Burke and Port relocation as definitive measures for real growth.

That the Wolstein and Stark developments along with West Shoreway plan are signs of progress.

Then when it came to Eaton it got weird. The host was actually grilling him (in the most polite, npr-ish way) that the Eaton location would hurt public access and might not be the best use for scarce, waterfront real estate. 

Mayor Jackson stated that Eaton's footprint would indeed be private property, and that there would no opportunity for any public access (Sherwin Williams Part II). But (bizarre alert) that Eaton's property wouldn't be much different from the Wostein project in that regard since the FEB would have some limited public access, but be mostly filled with private business and residential.

The Mayor then stated that there were "many obstacles to public access" but that he was certain all would be overcome in the future. He insinuated that it was idiotic to build railroad tracks, the shoreway and Cleveland Brown Stadium where they are (AGREE!!!) but I think this was to his defense, as a way of saying "look, this was all screwed up already."

I am not really comfortable with how evasive and vague he was on the public access issue. Until the right of coastal access is codified in city or state laws, we will merely be at the mercy of the developers when it comes to actually reaching the water.

Offline 3231

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4269
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #162 on: April 22, 2008, 11:47:07 AM »
I'm confused. Public access to the loop or access to the waterfront?

Offline surfohio

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 6258
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #163 on: April 22, 2008, 01:13:49 PM »
The discussion was about overall public access, not just the loop.

Online Matches

  • God of skinny punks.
  • 574'-Carew Tower
  • ****
  • Posts: 407
  • Eloquently sarcastic
    • Benander Games / Sports Data
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #164 on: April 22, 2008, 02:06:52 PM »
That doesn't make any sense.  From what you've written (I didn't hear the interview) I think Jackson's "public access" is referring to parks and greenspace.  Eaton's campus is the only thing going inside the loop; there will be no reason for anyone to enter the loop unless they work for Eaton or have business there.  It is lakefront land that will be used for Eaton business and that is all, and whether or not that is acceptable has been debated on the FEB thread.

The way you describe Jackson's response makes me think he's not really with it.  He says, "Well, Eaton is private property so that means it's not public.   So too, really, is the rest of the Wolstein development.  It's residential and private business."  Well, no, they are completely different, because residents are members of the freaking public.  Just because the land is mostly filled by private buildings and isn't owned by the public doesn't mean you're restricting public access.

As far as orienting the city north rather than east-west, that ship has too sailed.  Look at the infrastructure: nearly every major avenue and all but one of our interstates orients the city east-west.  All our rail lines do the same. 
"The urban core is a net importer of young adults and a net exporter of old adults. That's the antithesis of a dying city."

Offline surfohio

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 6258
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #165 on: April 22, 2008, 05:01:02 PM »
Agreed Jackson sounded really wishy washy with the whole lakefront public access issue. It was weird. Comparing Eaton and the Wolstein plan just doesn't make sense in my book, two very different concepts.

The Mayor's best answer would've been that the loop was inaccesible anyway, so no harm done.

I think the interviewer was more worried with the future possibility of more strictly private, Eaton style development along the shore, and rightly so.

Offline Punch

  • UO Supporting Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3907
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #166 on: May 29, 2008, 10:59:12 AM »
Mods if there is an appropriate thread for this, please combine.  I could not find one.

With all of the good news about developments that appear to be happening, such as FEB, Pesht, Jacob's Public Square, everything going on in UC, it will be the biggest building boom in the city.  Have we yet again ignored the lake?

What potential developments could connect the city to the lake?  The convention center pops to mind.  There is also the port relocation.  Is there anything else?

Will future generations look back at this time and curse us idiots for ignoring the lake?

Those fears aside, how do we leverage the knowledge and connections of the members of this board to bring lakefront development to the front burner.  Or is it there already?
« Last Edit: May 29, 2008, 10:59:54 AM by punch »
Originally Punch, then CleveChiNola, now back to Punch.

Offline MyTwoSense

  • 40+ and Fly
  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 21067
  • back with a vengeance!
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #167 on: May 29, 2008, 11:03:06 AM »
Punch,

there are various threads on each topic

Lakefront Development News: Cleveland
http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,3638.0.html

Cleveland Convention Center/Medical Mart Thread
http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,1782.0.html

Cleveland: Port Relocation
http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,9777.0.html
my 2 ¢     Please Sell Crazy Someplace Else....We Have Excess Inventory Here!!

Offline Punch

  • UO Supporting Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3907
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #168 on: May 29, 2008, 11:11:19 AM »
Thanks, MTS.  I was looking for the tread discussing the 50 year lakefront plan. 
Originally Punch, then CleveChiNola, now back to Punch.

Offline C-Dawg

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 4225
  • Detroit Junior
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #169 on: May 29, 2008, 11:19:58 AM »
Have we yet again ignored the lake?

Cleveland made the terrible mistake in building a freeway along most of the waterfront. The best thing to do would be rerouting the highway (if even possible). That would not be cheap nor easy.

Cleveland also has a man-made harbor which limits its lakefront appeal somewhat, though still, it's got way more than most cities- 14 miles of fu**ing coastline! I would say without a doubt the waterfront is underutilized. There are a lot of proposals for moving the port and building new housing/retail/marinas on the waterfront, but not a shovel has been turned. I think it's more political hot-air (vote for my a$$ cuz I got ideas). There also is nowhere near enough public access in Cleveland. It has 14 miles of coastline, but maybe one mile of public access.

« Last Edit: May 29, 2008, 11:23:49 AM by C-Dawg Njaim »

Offline surfohio

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 6258
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #170 on: May 29, 2008, 11:20:44 AM »
The Lakefront is certainly Cleveland's most underutilized asset, and a very frustrating issue to address.

Whereas many other coastal cities benefit greatly using their location as a magnet to tourism and a high quality of life, our shoreline languishes under the horrible decisions made over the last hundred years.

I have to give props to the Campbell Administration for attempting to make the waterfront a major priority. However, the most disappointing aspects of the Lakefront Plan is 1. the plan has no teeth, there is no point of legal enforcement (so it's merely a passive guideline of nice graphics) and 2. the very long duration is not nearly as motivating as broader, quicker, more immediate solutions.

The reality that things might not really change that much in our lifetime is a real downer. Another sad reality is that the future of our lakefront is largely in the hands of developers, so at this point we- the public- are at their mercy.

There is no statutory requirement to increase or maintain any public access to the waterfront. And because of "home rule" in Ohio, that is something that may have to be remedied at the state level.  But as far as making a difference goes, legally ensuring the right public access would  be a major victory for the future.


Offline MyTwoSense

  • 40+ and Fly
  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 21067
  • back with a vengeance!
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #171 on: May 29, 2008, 11:22:50 AM »
but we also have to remember, our lakefront, unlike many others has always been a working lakefront.

Not until the 80's did people look at it from a recreational or housing perspective.

In addition the soil and how the natural shoreline was created is some sort of issue, if my memory serves me correctly.
my 2 ¢     Please Sell Crazy Someplace Else....We Have Excess Inventory Here!!

Offline C-Dawg

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 4225
  • Detroit Junior
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #172 on: May 29, 2008, 11:26:25 AM »
but we also have to remember, our lakefront, unlike many others has always been a working lakefront.

Unlike many others? Are you kidding? It's the same thing for Chicago, Buffalo, Toledo, Duluth, Sandusky, Erie, etc., etc. All the major Great Lakes ports (and ocean ports) have working waterfronts (meaning a large shipping component). Still, many have managed to increase public access to the water and are undergoing large redevelopments. Cleveland does lag behind in lakefront development. For some reason, Cleveland focused more on Cuyahoga Creek. There IS however one big difference between Cleveland and the other Great Lakes cities. Cleveland's port is right smack in downtown. Most the Great Lakes cities have their port in another area (or in Toledo's case, two other areas).

In addition the soil and how the natural shoreline was created is some sort of issue, if my memory serves me correctly.

It is a completely man-made harbor (and the breakwater stretches for five miles). It doesn't have a natural harbor like you find in most other major shipping ports. Still, there's a hell of a lot more that can be done with the harbor area to increase its appeal.

Not until the 80's did people look at it from a recreational or housing perspective.

Not true. There used to be way more public beaches/resorts in Cleveland than there are today. It's the same story all over Ohio. Ohio has done little to help Lake Erie. We've decreased public access, destroyed beaches, destroyed 90% of the marshland (which cleaned the water and increase wildlife), polluted the sh!t out of the water (the Cleveland dead zone) and torn down most of the summer resorts (save for Ottawa County and Cedar Point).

Your post doesn't surprise me one bit MTS. You, like most Ohioans, are not aware of what we once had in this state and chose to destroy. There is not a single state in this country with a worse track record of water pollution and habitat destruction than Ohio. There also are very few states that have destroyed as much marshland and natural beaches. When the original settlers came to Ohio, Lake Erie was sprakling clear. The massive complex complex of marshes kept out silt, runoff, and pollution.

« Last Edit: May 29, 2008, 12:29:30 PM by C-Dawg Njaim »

Offline surfohio

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 6258
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #173 on: May 29, 2008, 11:41:17 AM »
Very good points MTS, that things got out of balance very much in favor of industry.

Even if someone had a nice place on the Lake, for some years you wouldn't want to even go near the water. This could explain why so many lakefront properties focus solely on "the view" and completely ignore that often times, the "beaches" are actually horrible pile of concrete, landfill, metal and other refuse (see Lakewood, Bratenhal, etc.)

Oh, and as far as how "natural" the shoreline is now, another criticism of the Lakefront Plan is the best coastal engineers were never brought in to consult on how much restoration is actually possible.

We could look to Toronto, who is light years ahead of us right now with re-connecting to their lakefront.

But also agree with C-Dawg that the beaches, including Edgewater Park, were once very very beautiful and well maintained. And lets be clear, the problems with the Lake are STATE WIDE and not unique to Cleveland. 



but we also have to remember, our lakefront, unlike many others has always been a working lakefront.

Not until the 80's did people look at it from a recreational or housing perspective.

In addition the soil and how the natural shoreline was created is some sort of issue, if my memory serves me correctly.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2008, 11:45:05 AM by surfohio »

Offline C-Dawg

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 4225
  • Detroit Junior
Re: Cleveland: Lakefront Development News
« Reply #174 on: May 29, 2008, 11:49:27 AM »
But also agree with C-Dawg that the beaches, including Edgewater Park, were once very very beautiful and well maintained. And lets be clear, the problems with the Lake are STATE WIDE and not unique to Cleveland. 

Of course state government is mostly responsible for what happened to the lake (and the national government too). It's a Toledo and Sandusky problem just like it's a Cleveland problem.

Drive up to the Canadian side and see what a difference that can make. The water is cleaner, the beaches are wider/longer, and the color is better.

Oh, and as far as how "natural" the shoreline is now, another criticism of the Lakefront Plan is the best coastal engineers were never brought in to consult on how much restoration is actually possible.

Unfortunately, nothing within Cleveland's five-mile breakwater can be natural. It completely disrupts water flow and littoral transport of sand. You can't maintain a beach there or anything else. Outside the breakwater, much can be done.

In terms of how to rebuild shorelines, two things must be done:

1. Beach replacement/replenishment with natural sand. The best way to do this is with segemented off-shore tombolos (like you see in metro Toledo's East Harbor beach or some of Erie's Presque Isle beaches). The worst way to do it is with groins (like at the former Crane Creek State Park). Maumee Bay also f$&ked up since they installed segmented breakwaters, but put them right on the damn beach. They must be a good distance off shore to build up sand. Maumee Bay has gained no sand with its system.

2. Restore marshland. The main reason the lake got dirty and lost clarity actually is not from industrial pollution (though that's responsible for all the Cuyahoga fires). The lake got dirty from too much siltation and runoff. Marshes prevent this. They trap all the silt and runoff before it gets in the lake. This greatly reduces pollution and keeps the water beautiful and clean. To protect the marsh, you need a barrier beach (like East Harbor I mentioned above). Lake Erie used to be sparkling clear when it had its full marsh system. Today, we only have about 10% of the original marsh system left. We destroyed our marshes, and the water got dirty as a result. We also have sloppy agricultural practices that increase runoff and siltation. Buffer strips along creeks and ditches can go a long way in preventing silt and runoff from getting into the major rivers and lake. Ohio (save for Marcy Kaptur who fights incredibly hard for marshland restoration and better agricultural practices) tends to have the attitude of "we just don't give a f$&k about our water." It's not just Lake Erie that is dirty (though at least now it's only dirty in Toledo and Cleveland), it is every single river, creek, and ditch in this state. Ohio's favorite color for water is brown.

« Last Edit: May 29, 2008, 12:07:56 PM by C-Dawg Njaim »

Remove Ads