Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I thought nuCLEus was still moving along in a revamped configuration. You did say somewhat in terms of getting off or into the ground as it has been a while since this project was announced. Getting rid of that parking area will be great, adding to cleveland's densifying downtown for sure.
Looking forward to the SW headquarters and hoping for at least a 500'+ building on Public Square but according to the article written by the blogger, it could be at least 600'+.
Yes, word is out that Stark is moving ahead with the revamped nuCLEus with only the office tower and not the residential one; a bummer to me, but at least they're moving forward. Let's hope the residential tower does, indeed, get financed and built in the near future -- the parking deck will maintain a reserved spot for it.
I did get the sense things were just a tad uncertain because the coronavirus has stalled them getting CPC approval because our archaic commission somehow can't convene virtually... And Stark is on some kind of clock to get shovels in the ground so as to keep the Benesch law firm from backing out of their agreed-upon nuCLEus tenancy... It is looking more positive than not, but with Bob Stark there's such a thin line because he brings so little of his own cash to the table and is reliant on his partners to keep his projects going.
Looks like there's plans to build another USS Cleveland, a navy fighting vessel. https://www.crainscleveland.com/manu...-uss-cleveland
And also plans to have a museum in 25-30 years when the ship's mission is completed. Lincoln Electric even throwing in $250k to kick start the foundation. Hope I can visit the museum some day. (30 years? hope so.
Given the small width of the Cuyahoga River, it should be relatively affordable. It would be great if it would be topped (covered without walls) in order to protect pedestrians and bikes from the elements, but not block views.
Its eastern terminus should connect to a Waterfront Line station.
Who would pay for it? Local governments, barring a comprehensive federal financial rescue (unlikely given Republican control of the Presidency and the Senate), will be financially strapped. The biggest beneficiaries would be West Flats developers. Right now, they could borrow the funds cheaply IF they established a special real estate financing district to service the debt. Perhaps separate taxing districts with lower rates covering the East Flats and downtown could also gain support to help finance the project.
The bridge should be an architectural masterpiece and designed to survive a 500-year flood (an inevitable prospect IMO given climate change and continued Cuyahoga River watershed development).
I'm unaware that the Cuyahoga River watershed has an authority such as exists in the Chagrin River watershed to limit run-off. Such authorities should be a priority of state, county and local governments, although certainly opposed by developers. It especially should be a priority for Cleveland, Flats developers, and Flats and Port Authority marine interests. The 500-year Grand River flood destroyed marinas and swept boats out into Lake Erie.
Many Grand River property owners lacked federal or other flood insurance. I'm unaware if Cleveland has learned from this experience and promoted flood insurance among its Cuyahoga River property owners. I wonder if Cleveland could mandate the purchase of flood insurance as part of the occupancy permit process. Could a special taxing district purchase flood insurance for all property owners as well as city and county properties (e.g., fireboat station, Merwin's Wharf, etc.).
Bike paths tying into the new west bank trails to Lake Erie also should be part of the plan.
Downtown and east side bikers should be able to reach the west side bike trails using the Veterans Memorial (Detroit-Superior) and Hope Memorial (Lorain-Carnegie) bridges, but I'm not certain what traffic hazards are present. I'm also unaware of any plans to provide traffic-protected bicycle path links between these bridges and the greater Towpath Trail (see post 3883), including the Whiskey Island connector that also will provide easy bicycle access to Edgewater Park.
My rambling thoughts on the exciting idea of a Flats pedestrian/bicycle lift bridge and other bicycle/pedestrian links across the Cuyahoga River.
The bridge should be an architectural masterpiece and designed to survive a 500-year flood (an inevitable prospect IMO given climate change and continued Cuyahoga River watershed development).
I'm unaware that the Cuyahoga River watershed has an authority such as exists in the Chagrin River watershed to limit run-off. Such authorities should be a priority of state, county and local governments, although certainly opposed by developers. It especially should be a priority for Cleveland, Flats developers, and Flats and Port Authority marine interests. The 500-year Grand River flood destroyed marinas and swept boats out into Lake Erie.
r.
The Cuyahoga River, does not flood downtown due to it being dredged to 25+ feet deep all of the way out to the shipping channel in the lake, the river downtown is really nothing more than an extenstion of Lake Erie all of the way up to ArcelorMittal.
Much of the Cuyahoga River watershed is "managed" by the NEORSD and the Summit County MSD, where stormwater runoff fees are assessed on sewer bills. These collections are feeding a multi-billion dollar stormwater infrastructure building campaign. Most of it is for building tunnels to collect stormwater for post-storm processing but there are also retention ponds, land acquisition, and public education. These investments are expected to reduce combined sewer overflows to less than 5% in 10 years, a huge win for Lake Erie and the Cuyahoga River. (BTW, much further than the EPA has required.)
The only way I see a pedestrian bridge getting built over the Cuyahoga (further downstream than the swing bridge) would be for that bridge to also support either RTA or cars. If there is enough residential development on the West bank then maybe RTA and local governments could build a case for such a bridge.
Until that happens, its just going to be a water taxi, which I hope is still around (?)
The Cuyahoga River, does not flood downtown due to it being dredged to 25+ feet deep all of the way out to the shipping channel in the lake, the river downtown is really nothing more than an extenstion of Lake Erie all of the way up to ArcelorMittal.
Also, as dams are removed from the Cuyahoga, I would think that flooding through Cleveland would become more likely, especially given the steepness of the Cuyahoga, over 500 feet over just 84 miles.
I would want to see a federal study saying that the Cuyahoga River through the Flats is invulnerable to any flooding.
The Grand River also is a commercial harbor and is dredged. My memory is that the Grand River as its flows between the villages of Grand River and Fairport Harbor is much wider than the Cuyahoga River through the Flats.
Enjoyed your other comments, although I disagree with your conclusion about the financial viability of a pedestrian/bicycle lift bridge across the Cuyahoga.
My hunch is that a pedestrian/bicycle bridge may be very affordable, if funded by a property tax assessment and perhaps even by user fees, using subway station like toll booths. The bridge could be remotely controlled by personnel at one of the other CR lift bridges, whether using cameras and/or binoculars.
Given the small width of the Cuyahoga River, it should be relatively affordable. It would be great if it would be topped (covered without walls) in order to protect pedestrians and bikes from the elements, but not block views.
Its eastern terminus should connect to a Waterfront Line station.
Who would pay for it? Local governments, barring a comprehensive federal financial rescue (unlikely given Republican control of the Presidency and the Senate), will be financially strapped. The biggest beneficiaries would be West Flats developers. Right now, they could borrow the funds cheaply IF they established a special real estate financing district to service the debt. Perhaps separate taxing districts with lower rates covering the East Flats and downtown could also gain support to help finance the project.
The bridge should be an architectural masterpiece and designed to survive a 500-year flood (an inevitable prospect IMO given climate change and continued Cuyahoga River watershed development).
I'm unaware that the Cuyahoga River watershed has an authority such as exists in the Chagrin River watershed to limit run-off. Such authorities should be a priority of state, county and local governments, although certainly opposed by developers. It especially should be a priority for Cleveland, Flats developers, and Flats and Port Authority marine interests. The 500-year Grand River flood destroyed marinas and swept boats out into Lake Erie.
Many Grand River property owners lacked federal or other flood insurance. I'm unaware if Cleveland has learned from this experience and promoted flood insurance among its Cuyahoga River property owners. I wonder if Cleveland could mandate the purchase of flood insurance as part of the occupancy permit process. Could a special taxing district purchase flood insurance for all property owners as well as city and county properties (e.g., fireboat station, Merwin's Wharf, etc.).
Bike paths tying into the new west bank trails to Lake Erie also should be part of the plan.
Downtown and east side bikers should be able to reach the west side bike trails using the Veterans Memorial (Detroit-Superior) and Hope Memorial (Lorain-Carnegie) bridges, but I'm not certain what traffic hazards are present. I'm also unaware of any plans to provide traffic-protected bicycle path links between these bridges and the greater Towpath Trail (see post 3883), including the Whiskey Island connector that also will provide easy bicycle access to Edgewater Park.
My rambling thoughts on the exciting idea of a Flats pedestrian/bicycle lift bridge and other bicycle/pedestrian links across the Cuyahoga River.
Man, this would be cool. It would just be so nice. It would feel like a next level city. I dont know, maybe I'm sentimental but for example I love all those pedestrian bridges over the Liffy in Dublin. If we could have even just one quaint bridge like that, connecting 2 very popular areas, Cleveland would really feel great on a summer night with live music in the air. Would just love to see this.
Also, as dams are removed from the Cuyahoga, I would think that flooding through Cleveland would become more likely, especially given the steepness of the Cuyahoga, over 500 feet over just 84 miles.
I would want to see a federal study saying that the Cuyahoga River through the Flats is invulnerable to any flooding.
The Grand River also is a commercial harbor and is dredged. My memory is that the Grand River as its flows between the villages of Grand River and Fairport Harbor is much wider than the Cuyahoga River through the Flats.
Enjoyed your other comments, although I disagree with your conclusion about the financial viability of a pedestrian/bicycle lift bridge across the Cuyahoga.
My hunch is that a pedestrian/bicycle bridge may be very affordable, if funded by a property tax assessment and perhaps even by user fees, using subway station like toll booths. The bridge could be remotely controlled by personnel at one of the other CR lift bridges, whether using cameras and/or binoculars.
The existing Cuyahoga River dams do not provide significant water retention for two reasons: they are contained within tight valleys and have significant sediment build up. Its all about water volume retention. For a dam to be effective against flooding, it has to have the ability to back up water into a large containment basin, the Cuyahoga does not have this ability at the Cuyahoga Falls Gorge dam nor the Kent dam or any other dam on the river, including Rockwell.
Dredging a river allows it to move more water at a lower pressure, therefore the water level does not rise. A river's water level rises when water pressure goes up, decreasing the flow will increase water pressure and a river's water level will rise. The Cuyahoga River is dredged to 25+ feet deep which gives this "shipping channel" not only the ability to float a huge lake freighter but also the ability to move an incredible amount of water flow out into lake Erie at a decreased water pressure.
Dredging a river allows it to move more water at a lower pressure, therefore the water level does not rise. A river's water level rises when water pressure goes up, decreasing the flow will increase water pressure and a river's water level will rise. The Cuyahoga River is dredged to 25+ feet deep which gives this "shipping channel" not only the ability to float a huge lake freighter but also the ability to move an incredible amount of water flow out into lake Erie at a decreased water pressure.
Even if you're right, I would enjoy seeing an expert opinion that the Flats are invulnerable to flooding given the historic precedent of the Great Flood of 1913. Was the Cuyahoga River through the Flats NOT dredged in 1913? Admittedly, it may take a 500-year storm to flood the Flats, but that is what hit the Grand River watershed earlier this century. The Grand River event was a flash flood lasting only hours, but the damage was immense.
<<Cleveland did not escape unscathed. The Flats were flooded by the Cuyahoga River, sweeping wood from lumberyards into Lake Erie and washing away businesses, rail yards, and trains, but there were no deaths. A ship that broke loose from its moorings did take out the West Third Street bridge. It's unknown exactly how high the water got in Cleveland because there was no flood gauge [is there a Cuyahoga River flood gauge in the Flats today?] in 1913, Jamison said.>>
Given lake flooding even now in the western basin due to easterly and northeasterly winds, winds also conceivably could back up Lake Erie off the Cleveland coast.
Given the Great Flood of 2013, and even the long-anticipated pandemic engulfing the nation, I'm not willing to agree that another Great Flood of the Flats is impossible absent an expert assessment.
BTW, if you read the above Metroparks article, dams in 2013 were holding back Cuyahoga River water, at least in Akron, as they blew up the Ohio and Erie Canal locks/dams there to alleviate the flooding and in the process destroying much of the canal bed below Akron.
<<The Ohio and Erie Canal was in ruins. In and around Akron, canal locks acted as dams and were dynamited to release the water. As a result, raging waters poured into other canal towns, like Boston, causing flooding and destroying canal beds along the way. Flood damage along its 308 miles from Cleveland to Portsmouth had rendered the canal useless in most areas. Since it was no longer used for transportation, no attempt was made to rebuild thus ending the canal era in Ohio.>>
Let's face it. The U.S. and Ohio today possesses leadership that is the opposite of prescient, and not just the Republicans IMO.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wards Island Bridge and Flats pedestrian lift bridge considerations
