ODOT invited small stakeholder groups to generate ideas on how to slice up the $25 million urban design budget set aside from the $1.5 billion Innerbelt Project with the goal of improving the connections to and identity of Cleveland and its neighborhoods.

On May 8, 2007, I sat in at City Architecture, which is running the meetings, while a small group wrestled over how to best invest this relatively small sum. Should it be spent on a few sensory ‘moments’ of public art, parks, trails, lighting, or one big bang project such as creating a land bridge that hides the scar on the urban fabric caused by the highway?

Hunter Morrison, ex-Cleveland Planning Director now urban design consultant for the Quadrangle and Tri-C, spent considerable time arguing for a land bridge spanning E. 22nd to E. 24th streets.

“It could restore the urban fabric between Tri-C and Cleveland State…create an innovation zone where a ten minute walk between places isn’t out of the ordinary.” ODOT already plans to build a bridge at E. 22nd , he added. A land cap might reestablish the street grid, even if it does eat up the entire urban design budget.

ODOT provided $2 million for the Columbus land cap, with private developers paying for the majority. A land-cap would make sense if it gave Tri-C, the city and developers enough incentive to build real estate, said City Architecture head Paul Volpe.

The Central Interchange—with the Trench, the I-77 overpass and the new frontage roads—will create about 15 lanes of road, said EcoCity Cleveland director David Beach. That’s more concrete than we have now, running the risk of creating a dead zone if not planned properly. “Despite all the decorative concrete and lighting, we could end up with the same sterile environment they have around the trench and frontage roads in Cincinnati.”

The I-75 trench in Cincinnati was built with vertical walls to support a land cap, said ODOT’s Craig Hebebrand. The cap was never built, despite decades of talking about it, because they didn’t invest in a complete street at the time. The idea of capping over the Innerbelt at E. 22nd might gain more traction if “locals weren’t expending all of their political capital downstate arguing against the closing of the Carnegie ramp,” Hebebrand said, referring to Midtown Cleveland, Downtown Cleveland Alliance and the Cleveland Clinic who are arguing that closing the Carnegie ramp will choke off economic development in that part of the city.

Morrison’s enthusiasm for the land cap and reestablishing the street grid in the Quadrangle was unmatched. What time was left went to calls for examining the design of the frontage road.

Critics in the past, including CSU Urban Planning Professor Tom Bier, have questioned its ability to act as a feeder system to the highway when the ramps at Prospect and Superior are closed.

Cleveland Planning Director Bob Brown also wants to see more discussion about their design. “Will they be a pass-thru or will they have buildings on them?” he asked. “The lot dimensions and configuration will determine if they create value or not.”

At this point, it appears that the frontage road will be a city street. The concern is without a strong (hired) advocate such as Morrison, the design of the frontage road will be pushed off. I asked Brown when will we have a planning process that considers the ongoing question of how the frontage road integrates with the city’s street grid? He replied that the time is now to discuss it.

Morrison believes the land cap will drive pedestrian and bike traffic from Tri-C Metro onto the frontage road. The aesthetics subcommittee will take up the design of the frontage roads as part of the whole package, Volpe promised.