Author Topic: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)  (Read 239847 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MyTwoSense

  • 40+ and Fly
  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 21067
  • back with a vengeance!
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #70 on: January 15, 2009, 08:49:20 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.
my 2 ¢     Please Sell Crazy Someplace Else....We Have Excess Inventory Here!!

Offline peabody99

  • 771'-Terminal Tower
  • *******
  • Posts: 1157
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #71 on: January 16, 2009, 05:43:23 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

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 5326
  • Fascinating
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #72 on: January 17, 2009, 02:16:05 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.
Vibrate your greenspace today with Frank Jackson

Offline w28th

  • 1450'-Willis Tower
  • *********
  • Posts: 1688
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #73 on: January 17, 2009, 10:45:43 AM »
I was going to say the same thing.
"When you stand at the corner of Euclid Avenue and East Ninth Street in Cleveland, you stand at one of the busiest corners in the world -- and in the heart of a shopping district known far and wide for its many fine shops."

Offline ExSpectator36

  • 408'-Kettering Tower
  • **
  • Posts: 152
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #74 on: January 17, 2009, 02:37:57 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

  • 771'-Terminal Tower
  • *******
  • Posts: 1157
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #75 on: January 17, 2009, 04:06:33 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

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 6254
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #76 on: January 18, 2009, 02:43:09 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

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 6254
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #77 on: January 18, 2009, 07:54:57 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

  • 1450'-Willis Tower
  • *********
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 1532
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #78 on: January 18, 2009, 08:04:46 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

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 6254
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #79 on: January 22, 2009, 08:22:32 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, 08:24:08 AM by surfohio »

Offline jpop

  • 1450'-Willis Tower
  • *********
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 1532
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #80 on: January 22, 2009, 09:05:37 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

  • 40+ and Fly
  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 21067
  • back with a vengeance!
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #81 on: January 22, 2009, 12:22:16 PM »
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!
my 2 ¢     Please Sell Crazy Someplace Else....We Have Excess Inventory Here!!

Offline jpop

  • 1450'-Willis Tower
  • *********
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 1532
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #82 on: March 19, 2009, 06:50:03 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, 06:51:01 PM by jpop »

Offline surfohio

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 6254
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #83 on: March 20, 2009, 12:27:07 PM »
"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, 01:39:42 PM by surfohio »

Offline 3231

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4269
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #84 on: March 20, 2009, 12:33:13 PM »
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

  • 367'-PNC Bank
  • **
  • Posts: 88
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #85 on: November 10, 2009, 04:47:47 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

  • 40+ and Fly
  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 21067
  • back with a vengeance!
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #86 on: November 10, 2009, 05:50:39 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
my 2 ¢     Please Sell Crazy Someplace Else....We Have Excess Inventory Here!!

Offline Avogadro

  • 574'-Carew Tower
  • ****
  • Posts: 424
  • Bleeding a trail through the lens
    • Slavic Village Development
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #87 on: November 10, 2009, 09:55:15 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.
Christopher Alvarado, Slavic Village Development

Offline MyTwoSense

  • 40+ and Fly
  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 21067
  • back with a vengeance!
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #88 on: November 10, 2009, 09:59:55 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.
my 2 ¢     Please Sell Crazy Someplace Else....We Have Excess Inventory Here!!

Offline X

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7326
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #89 on: November 10, 2009, 10:17:58 AM »
I think the water taxi returning would be awesome!

Offline bjk

  • 468'-Scripps Center
  • ***
  • Posts: 270
    • BJK Research LLC
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #90 on: November 10, 2009, 10:54:13 AM »
Figuring out a way to incorporate the lower level of the Detroit-Superior bridge may be an option far easier than a gondola

Offline MyTwoSense

  • 40+ and Fly
  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 21067
  • back with a vengeance!
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #91 on: November 10, 2009, 10:57:57 AM »
Figuring out a way to incorporate the lower level of the Detroit-Superior bridge may be an option far easier than a gondola

Personally I'd rather see subway built there connecting TC to OC.
my 2 ¢     Please Sell Crazy Someplace Else....We Have Excess Inventory Here!!

Offline tedders55

  • 771'-Terminal Tower
  • *******
  • Posts: 1049
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #92 on: November 10, 2009, 11:15:57 AM »
^ why not do both?  Have the subway portion as it is but figure out a way to incorporate a pedestrian walkway for transversing from the East and west sides.

Edit:  I actually would like a ped walkway more on the main ave bridge as I think this would connect each side closer to the entertainment centers.  Ideally something below the bridge street grade, with a stairway/elevator connection from the wlakway to the East/West Banks street level
« Last Edit: November 10, 2009, 11:20:20 AM by tedders55 »

Offline KJP

  • Premium Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37481
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
    • All Aboard Ohio
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #93 on: November 10, 2009, 11:58:16 AM »
The gondola idea was proposed about 20 years ago, and it would have used the superstructure of the Main Avenue Bridge. I don't remember if it was doable, but I think it would depend on the reliability of the superstructure.
"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 X

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7326
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #94 on: November 10, 2009, 01:02:17 PM »
The Detroit-Superior Bridge doesn't cross the river at the right point to connect make a new connection from the East to West Bank.  It crosses near to the Center St. bridge, but even farther away from the action and planned new development.

Offline tedders55

  • 771'-Terminal Tower
  • *******
  • Posts: 1049
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #95 on: November 10, 2009, 02:16:26 PM »
The gondola idea was proposed about 20 years ago, and it would have used the superstructure of the Main Avenue Bridge. I don't remember if it was doable, but I think it would depend on the reliability of the superstructure.

What Superstructure?  Its a flat deck.  Maybe using the sub structure?

Offline Loretto

  • Premium Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1757
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #96 on: November 10, 2009, 02:41:42 PM »
It's usually a bad idea to think about any engineered structure from the perspective of the user.  Pretty sure all the steel elements that we can see under the deck is still considered superstructure.

Offline Coneybear

  • 555'-LeVeque Tower
  • ***
  • Posts: 316
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #97 on: November 10, 2009, 05:18:09 PM »
If the Flats East Bank project is a success, and progress keeps continuing in the West Bank, I would hope that some sort of bridge or gondola would be considered to connect the two regions. That only makes sense to me, but sometimes people don't do what makes sense in this area.

Offline MyTwoSense

  • 40+ and Fly
  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 21067
  • back with a vengeance!
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #98 on: November 10, 2009, 05:37:37 PM »
If the Flats East Bank project is a success, and progress keeps continuing in the West Bank, I would hope that some sort of bridge or gondola would be considered to connect the two regions. That only makes sense to me, but sometimes people don't do what makes sense in this area.

Sense how?  Financially??  Patronage?  Return on investment?  It's a working river which is part of the issue.
my 2 ¢     Please Sell Crazy Someplace Else....We Have Excess Inventory Here!!

Offline Etheostoma Caeruleum

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 2290
  • Fish worship... Is it wrong?
    • Quality Chatter!
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #99 on: November 10, 2009, 05:42:58 PM »
^ Yes...add all three of those and In many other ways!
This city desert makes you feel so cold....
Its got so many people but its got no soul...
And its taken you so long...to find out you were wrong..
When you thought it held everything. -- Gerry Rafferty, "Baker Street"

Offline Coneybear

  • 555'-LeVeque Tower
  • ***
  • Posts: 316
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #100 on: November 10, 2009, 06:06:09 PM »
If the Flats East Bank project is a success, and progress keeps continuing in the West Bank, I would hope that some sort of bridge or gondola would be considered to connect the two regions. That only makes sense to me, but sometimes people don't do what makes sense in this area.

Sense how?  Financially??  Patronage?  Return on investment?  It's a working river which is part of the issue.
I know which is why we shouldn't jump on top of this idea until the Flats East Bank and projects in the West Bank are proven to be successful.

Offline KJP

  • Premium Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37481
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
    • All Aboard Ohio
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #101 on: November 10, 2009, 08:35:35 PM »

What Superstructure?  Its a flat deck.  Maybe using the sub structure?

Yes, substructure.
"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 theguv

  • 574'-Carew Tower
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • my friends usually call me John
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #102 on: November 13, 2009, 11:23:37 AM »
The gondola idea was proposed about 20 years ago, and it would have used the superstructure of the Main Avenue Bridge. I don't remember if it was doable, but I think it would depend on the reliability of the superstructure.

there is an artistic rendering of this gondola concept inside the county engineers office @ stonebridge.  if you use the bathroom facilities, you will see it hanging.....framed
"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 McCleveland

  • blah
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3174
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #103 on: December 16, 2009, 12:11:34 PM »
Interesting little article on the cleveland Rowing Foundation plans for their little section of the cuyahoga.  This could have a HUGE impact.

Cleveland Rowing Foundation plan for Rivergate Park on the Cuyahoga River deserves support
By Steven Litt, The Plain Dealer
December 16, 2009, 11:30AM

Good ideas can take forever to become a reality in Cleveland, especially when it comes to creating public access to Lake Erie or the Cuyahoga River.

But that's not always the case. For a short time, the nonprofit Cleveland Rowing Foundation has a stunning opportunity to create roughly seven acres of publicly accessible recreation and parkland on the Cuyahoga River, whose banks are largely off-limits.

If the organization can raise $3.2 million by Wednesday, March 31, it can exercise an option to buy the riverfront property from the now-defunct Commodore's Club Marina on Columbus Road Peninsula, which decided to close last spring.


more at: http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2009/12/cleveland_rowing_foundation_fo.html
Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement.  - Anonymous

Offline urbanforever

  • 629'-Rhodes State Tower
  • *****
  • Posts: 619
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #104 on: December 16, 2009, 12:45:15 PM »
This sounds like a great idea!!  I really hope that it goes through...  I am really getting excited about the proposed terminus park of the tow-path and the synergy a tow-path and a rowing house could create in the flats.  Does anyone know where the proposed tow-path park is suppossed to be located?

Remove Ads