“The port’s plan, which is still evolving, looks brilliant in many ways.
It would free up much of the downtown lakefront for future development, put the port next to I-90 and major rail lines, and obviate the need for a costly new truck route along the west side of the Cuyahoga River to serve the port had it expanded there.
But plans for the relocation — which won’t start for 10 years or more — could create immediate pressure on the city and the port to allow downtown corporations to abandon the business core for sites on the waterfront.
Already, Eaton Corp. has proposed moving from its current building at East 12th Street and Superior Avenue to the rapid transit loop of the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority…” (go to article)
-
- 1/3 MOVIE NIGHT
-
CLEDESIGNCITY ON TWITTER
-
CLEVELANDDESIGNCITY.COM RSS
March 7, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Bravo Mr. Litt for grabbing a few digital photos of the ongoing development of the Flats East Bank site plan at today’s Planning Commission meeting!
I share the same concern about the Eaton precedent. It appears that the preliminary site plan situates Eaton within an expanded RTA loop connected to the existing street grid with a couple of campus access roads to parking lots and what looks like a pedestrian bridge over the railway.
There is no suggestion of how the remaining lakefront north of the tracks should be developed other than Wasserman’s ‘vision’ of extending the downtown grid to the lake and the City’s lakefront plan which has seemingly dissolved in recent years (the current lakefront plan as published on the City Planning Commission website shows a compact RTA loop as “Mixed-Use Residential” adjacent to several blocks of orthagonal streetgrid framed by a riverwalk and picnic meadow) .
There NEEDS to be a master plan, land use diagram, or form-based code that is developed in conjunction with Eaton’s move. Already, a large portion of the lakefront real estate at the river’s mouth is dedicated to Eaton’s campus after the expanded RTA loop with ZERO concern as to what this prime “public” lakefront will become after the port’s move. This development creates an even larger barrier between downtown, the flats development, and the lakefront. Its as though Chagrin Highlands has landed on our waterfront!
This is a complete betrayal to the people of Cleveland if Eaton’s move is not considered within larger plans for the future lakefront. Whether or not the lakefront north of the tracks is dedicated to contiguous parkland and recreation, a new residential neighborhood, waterfront destinations and entertainment, or even corporate campuses, the City of Cleveland needs to clarify a vision for the lakefront before companies carve up their pieces of the waterfront as Sherwin Williams and now Eaton have.
As Litt suggests, Wolstein is holding the plans close. However, as significant as the public investment is in making this project happen on a lakefront promised to the people of Cleveland, there needs to be a public dialogue on how Eaton fits into concrete plans for the future lakefront. More specifically, the land north of the tracks between the mouth of the river and Cleveland Browns Stadium.