Jump to content
zaceman

Cleveland: Lakefront Development and News

Recommended Posts

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ass 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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you’re an expert on our lakefront?

 

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).

 

Cleveland’s downtown lakefront has always been working, unlike others who have increased it and by the way the river and lake are naturally arrange, it’s never been a thought to live downtown until the 80’s.

 

As you state, other cities ports were not in the heart of the CBD.

 

 

 

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.

I’m speaking about the actual natural shoreline and our bedrock, which is different than other cities.  I cannot find the information as to why ours is different, but maybe KJP knows.

 

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 over 80% 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 single state in this country with worse track record of water pollution 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.

 

Again, I’m talking about DOWNTOWN where the port is relocated.  What part of this  don’t you understand??

 

There have never been beaches in DOWNTOWN CLEVELAND or RESIDENTIAL LIVING until the 80s.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you’re an expert on our lakefront?

 

You're damn right I am. My family has been on the port authority of Ohio cities, and I study this extensively.

 

Again, I’m talking about DOWNTOWN where the port is relocated.  What part of this  don’t you understand??

 

Then SAY THAT. You're original post completely forgot to bring that up (though I did).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being that the state government functions 130 miles away from Lake Erie, don't expect coastal issues to be addressed with the kind of urgency that they require.

 

I buckled and reluctantly headed over the the Rib Fest at Tower City Amp on Saturday, and I'm actually glad I went. The place was just packed with all kinds of people. The best thing was the waterfront ambience, the festival atmostphere, you could feel it. It is just something you can't ever get in Solon, Strongsville or Medina.

 

Now this is what kills me. The rib fest is a stupid ripoff but it is a good draw nonetheless because of the atmosphere. Imagine what kind of regional magnet an established boardwalk area in this town could be, a place with arcades, shopping, and waterfront views.  It's such a simple concept really. 

\

A place like a renewed Euclid Beach Park could practically materialize overnight at Scranton Peninsula or elsewhere, becoming the kind of draw that brings people back to the water. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m speaking about the actual natural shoreline and our bedrock, which is different than other cities.  I cannot find the information as to why ours is different, but maybe KJP knows.

 

There isn't much natural shoreline left in the first place. It's mostly gone today. Bedrock is different from the Western Basin, but not that uncommon. Cleveland does have much deeper bedrock though. It's softer bedrock, unlike the limestone bedrock of Toledo and Detroit, which sometimes is only a few feet from the surface (see the Islands area). Basically, the glaciers were able to carve deeper in the Cleveland area than they could in Toledo, Detroit, and Sandusky.

 

A place like a renewed Euclid Beach Park could practically materialize overnight at Scranton Peninsula or elsewhere, becoming the kind of draw that brings people back to the water.

 

It would be incredible, and I've pushed for that for a long time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being that the state government functions 130 miles away from Lake Erie, don't expect coastal issues to be addressed with the kind of urgency that they require.

 

And our state government doesn't give a damn about water (Columbus has no real water, and its creeks are mud). It's the work of Marcy Kaptur that has brought much-needed attention to Lake Erie and the watershed. Still, 130 miles is not far. Lansing is far from the water in Michigan, but you don't see Michigan ignoring their coasts. I realize Michigan is an extreme example since it has one of the largest coastlines of any state in the union, but still...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two threads were combined and based here in the city discussion section, since the older thread dealt mainly with the lakefront plan. Individual projects such as the port relocation, Pesht, etc. should continue to be discussed at the Cleveland development projects section.


"Now you're not naive enough to think we're living in a democracy, are you Buddy? It's the free market. And you're a part of it." -- Gordon Gekko.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So cue the Pollyanna picture

 

What strategies can I, or we, persue to put lakefront development higher on the regional adgenda?  Do we go to elected officials, or lobby groups such as the Cleveland Foundation or even Cleveland Public Art?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey C-Dawg are the jetty's parallel to the beach in Presqu Isle considered tombolos?

 

yes. The tombolos/segmented offshore breakwaters work to trap sand particles and are the most effective and best-looking way to restore beaches. The steel groins at Crane Creek were the worst and resulted in a very irregular beach with lots of sand on one side but not the other. Segmented offshore breakwaters maintain a smoother, more natural beach. The biggest problem with Maumee Bay (and a few other beaches) is that they didn't put them offshore. They must be offshore to have any effect.

 

They could be used anywhere outside of the Cleveland breakwater. There isn't enough sand to build a natural beach within the breakwater since it basically blocks all littoral transport.

 

Maumee Bay, don't do this. Put them offshore. You can see how quickly the sand stops in the Lake Erie:

800px-Maumee_Bay_State_Park_aerial_view.jpg

 

The following is an example of the segmented breakwaters at East Harbor (metro Toledo, but relevant to this discussion). East Harbor used to be by far Ohio's largest beach, with over 2.5 miles of uninterrupted sand. It was wide as hell too. What's left of the beach is the northern part where some limited restoration has begun. The southern part was wiped out by a nightmare storm in 1972. The majority of the beach has not been restored due to lack of state funding:

toledoblade.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What strategies can I, or we, persue to put lakefront development higher on the regional adgenda?  Do we go to elected officials, or lobby groups such as the Cleveland Foundation or even Cleveland Public Art?

 

National government can help a lot. I'm not sure who all the representatives are in Cleveland, but I know Toledo and Sandusky use their Great Lakes queen Marcy Kaptur to great lengths in securing national funding for the lake and marshes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh man, I hate those things!!!  Very dangerous for surfing and swimming, not to mention they look very unnatural. 

 

I am not against the tombolos I've seen on wiki/google on a larger scale, but those Presque Isle formations are not good.

 

In fact, I worked to convince Chris Ronayne to remove a similar proposal at Edgewater Park under the Lakefront Plan.

 

But I definitely agree with your Wetlands/marsh restoration. Sign me up.

 

Hey C-Dawg are the jetty's parallel to the beach in Presqu Isle considered tombolos?

 

yes. The tombolos/segmented offshore breakwaters work to trap sand particles and are the most effective and best-looking way to restore beaches. The steel groins at Crane Creek were the worst and resulted in a very irregular beach with lots of sand on one side but not the other. Tombolos maintain a smoother, more natural beach.

 

They could be used anywhere outside of the Cleveland breakwater. There isn't enough sand to build a natural beach within the breakwater since it basically blocks all littoral transport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh man, I hate those things!!!  Very dangerous for surfing and swimming, not to mention they look very unnatural. 

 

I am not against the tombolos I've seen on wiki/google on a larger scale, but those Presque Isle formations are not good.

 

In fact, I worked to convince Chris Ronayne to remove a similar proposal at Edgewater Park under the Lakefront Plan.

 

Unfortunately, that sometimes is the only way to get the sand back. Ohio has modified the shoreline so much that some beaches lost most of their natural sand transport. Even Miami, Florida has used them. They don't have to be permanant either...

 

And hey, they're not as unnatural looking as a wind turbine...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting the pics!! And those would work even at the depth of the lake where the breakwall is located?

 

I'm not against them being off the breakwall, just at edgewater park, it being one of the few places in the area with naturally breaking waves.

 

"East Harbor used to be by far Ohio's largest beach, with over 2.5 miles of uninterrupted sand....The southern part was wiped out by a nightmare storm in 1972. The majority of the beach has not been restored due to lack of state funding"

 

Why does every state on the east coast replenish their beaches with OUR money, and we can't get fed money here???

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting the pics!! And those would work even at the depth of the lake where the breakwall is located?

 

oh no, the water is too deep there for anything.

 

Why does every state on the east coast replenish their beaches with OUR money, and we can't get fed money here???

 

Most of our politcians suck and don't give a damn. Marcy Kaptur is the one big exception to this. She's gotten millions in federal funding for Lake Erie. She's arguably the most powerful Great Lakes politician.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"They could be used anywhere outside of the Cleveland breakwater. There isn't enough sand to build a natural beach within the breakwater since it basically blocks all littoral transport."

 

Okay then, I misunderstood. Thats too damn bad.

 

When the Port relocates, there might be an argument for removal of some of the harbor breakwall. This would allow for some littoral drift, and give Whiskey Island/Wendy Park an honest chance of being a real beach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

great discussion here. thanks for the many insightful posts.

 

does anyone have any idea how the proposal to create a marsh and narrow beach along the breakwall would affect the current shoreline?  this idea was floated a few years ago by Roger Thoma at a workshop sponsored by EcoCity Cleveland.  It was later reprinted in the PD.  IMO, it is THE MOST exciting idea I've yet seen proposed for our fair city.  any ideas on the feasibility of this proposal as well as the effects on the current shoreline?  More than just about anything, I wish this idea would become reality!

 

http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/ecologicaldesign/blue/ideabank/breakwall_habitat.html

 

thanks!

 

other relevant links:

 

EcoCity's IdeaBank for the lakefront

http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/ecologicaldesign/blue/ideabank/ideabank_main.html

 

a study on the market for lakefront housing:

http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/ecologicaldesign/blue/lakefront-housing.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

The ODNR budget has been slashed by more than half over the years.  Who on the forum would accept fees at Ohio State Parks so that they can have a budget to improve Huntington Beach, Edgewater, Wildwood, and Mentor Headlands?  Ohio is one of the few states without entry fees for state parks.

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.

 

Phosphate fertilizer runoff from the Maumee River valley has disrupted the nutrient balance and given the lake its weird look.

 

Lake Erie's level has always risen and fallen in multiyear cycles.  During high water years, the silt from the streams, with help from littoral currents, formed the ridges that defined the beaches.  There were large pools behind these ridges that were wonderful wildlife habitat.  When people developed that land, they put in ditches or whatever it took to take the water away so that they could have dry land to build on.  I don't know how to undo that. 

 

Some of the original habitat still exists at Crane, Ottawa, and Arcola Creek preserves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

great discussion here. thanks for the many insightful posts.

 

does anyone have any idea how the proposal to create a marsh and narrow beach along the breakwall would affect the current shoreline?  this idea was floated a few years ago by Roger Thoma at a workshop sponsored by EcoCity Cleveland.  It was later reprinted in the PD.  IMO, it is THE MOST exciting idea I've yet seen proposed for our fair city.  any ideas on the feasibility of this proposal as well as the effects on the current shoreline?  More than just about anything, I wish this idea would become reality!

 

http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/ecologicaldesign/blue/ideabank/breakwall_habitat.html

 

thanks!

 

other relevant links:

 

EcoCity's IdeaBank for the lakefront

http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/ecologicaldesign/blue/ideabank/ideabank_main.html

 

a study on the market for lakefront housing:

http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/ecologicaldesign/blue/lakefront-housing.html

 

Cool idea guv -- thanks for posting! 

 

The article said that this idea was presented as part of the Lakefront Planning process.  However, I don't remember it being a part of the final Lakefront plan.  Guv or anyone else -- Do you know why it was not included in the final plan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

does anyone have any idea how the proposal to create a marsh and narrow beach along the breakwall would affect the current shoreline?

 

That idea is probably just a pipe dream. It would be absurdly expensive, especially considering the average depth along the Cleveland Harbor breakwall. There never was a marsh there in the first place. It's been open Lake Erie water for thousands of years. Cleveland built the breakwall because they needed a harbor (the Cuyahoga is way too small, and there are no bays). There were never wetlands where there's 20 feet of water. Honestly, that idea should be way down the road. We have much more important issues to take care of first.

 

Before anything like that should happen, the state needs to focus on wetland restoration. This will do wonders for water and wildlife quality. We've destroyed 90% of our wetlands in Ohio, but Kaptur is working hard to get some back. She gets way more support in DC than she does in Ohio.

 

During high water years, the silt from the streams, with help from littoral currents, formed the ridges that defined the beaches.

 

Silt doesn't form beaches (it forms mud flats and muck), sand forms beaches, though both get in streams and rivers after rainfall. In big rivers like the Maumee, there actually are a couple "river beaches" near the mouth where sandbars have formed and people anchor their boats to swim. The problem is there is too much silt is in every river, creek, and stream in the state of Ohio. This silt overload gives our water its brown, dirty appearance for much of the year. One of the most interesting observations outsiders make when coming to our state is "how come all the water is so nasty looking?" The only really pretty waters are well offshore in Lake Erie and also around THE hub of Ohio tourism which is the Islands/summer resort area in Northwest Ohio (a major economic incentive in keeping the water clean). There a few sources of silt there and no major cities in that area, so the water stays cleaner. Other parts of the lake can be pretty, but it's only after maybe three of four days straight with no rainfall. Even notoriously dirty Maumee Bay (the dirtiest part of all the Great Lakes) can look good after a week without rain.

 

Agriculture itself is not the problem, it's the type of agriculture we practice. All it takes is buffer strips of vegetation along waterways to stop the silt overload and reduce fertilizer/chemical runoff. Marcy Kaptur has proposed tax incentives for farmers who grow buffer strips along their streams and ditches (since they lose a little bit of their land). Her goal is to get all of the Great Lakes watershed on board. Currently, I've heard about 30% of the Maumee watershed has grown buffer strips along the creeks and ditches in the farmland areas. It has made a marked difference. The water still has too much silt, but it's better than it was just ten years ago. Doing this with all farmland will improve water quality and reduce siltation/runoff drastically.

 

Still, we've got to restore marshland if we really want the lake to go back to its original state. Nothing filters water better than marshes. Currently, Wester Basin governments are buying up farms near Lake Erie to turn back into marshes. Many of the parks are expanding too even in the face of state budget cuts. Again, Kaptur is at the helm of this. There is no one in this state who fights harder for Lake Erie, and luckily, she's also one of the most influential people in the U.S. House of Representatives. She is the one responsible for the beautiful WW2 Memorial in DC, so she is very popular and respected, and this crosses party lines despite the fact she is very liberal. The Ohio 9th covers everything from Toledo to Lorain, so it's absolutely vital that pro-Lake Erie people are elected there. Cleveland of course should do the same. There is not a single person in the Lake Erie watershed who should be supporting anyone who doesn't fight for the lake. It is our lifeblood and will be our source of economic recovery. We must protect it at all costs.

 

The problem is that our state government just doesn't give much economic incentive to clean up Lake Erie (or any body of water for that matter). Hell, they just closed down Crane Creek State Park for the love of Jesus, which was one of the largest public beaches in the state! I'm really worried about the future of the lake given all the recent budget cuts. The parks system in Ohio is going to hell in a handbasket...and couple in all of Bush's false promises of funding for the lakes, and you've got a very depressing situation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting the breakwall links Guv...that website GreenCityBlueLake is incredible.

 

C-Dawg I think wetlands and marshland restoration is an integral component of any progress here. And the concepts of restoration and development need not be mutually exclusive.

 

http://www.mccullagh.org/db9/10d-18/point-pelee-national-park-marsh.jpg

 

Chicago is light years ahead of us. The Lakefront Plan dropped the ball....

 

This MUST happen in Cleveland:

 

In Chicago,

protecting the lakefront is the law

 

The protection of a free and open public lakefront is part of the civic culture of Chicago. Here is the city ordinance that helps to minimize intrusions of development.

 

Lake Michigan and Chicago Lakefront

Protection Ordinance

 

CHAPTER 16-4

(CHAPTER 194B*)

 

The basic policies which shall govern present and future development programs for Chicago’s lakefront are the following:

 

1) Complete the publicly owned and locally controlled park system along the entire Chicago lakefront.

 

2) Maintain and enhance the predominantly landscaped, spacious and continuous character of the lakeshore parks.

 

3) Continue to improve the water quality and ecological balance of Lake Michigan.

 

4) Preserve the cultural, historical, and recreational heritage of the lakeshore parks.

 

5) Maintain and improve the formal character and open water vista of Grant Park with no new above-ground structures permitted.

 

6) Increase the diversity of recreational opportunities while emphasizing lake-oriented leisure time activities.

 

7) Protect and develop natural lakeshore park and water area for wildlife habitation.

 

8) Increase personal safety.

 

9) Design all lake edge and lake construction to prevent detrimental shoreline erosion.

 

10) Ensure a harmonious relationship between the lakeshore parks and the community edge, but in no instance will further private development be permitted east of Lake Shore Drive.

 

11) Improve access to the lakeshore parks and reduce through vehicular traffic on secondary park roads.

 

12) Strengthen the parkway characteristics of Lake Shore Drive and prohibit any roadway of expressway standards.

 

13) Ensure that all port, water supply, and public facilities are designed to enhance lakefront character.

 

14) Coordinate all public and private development within the water, park, and community zones.

 

The Lakefront Plan of Chicago, dated December, 1972, is hereby accepted as an illustration to future development recognizing that specific development proposals will be separately considered for funding and separately evaluated for conformance to the basic policies for Chicago’s lakefront.

 

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...