Quote:
Originally Posted by Private Dick
Cleveland could definitely benefit from more spans across the Cuyahoga (particularly given present-day uses vs. historical uses), but it's just a completely different situation than in Chicago, now and historically.
Obviously, Chicago is many times larger and its central business core spans the Chicago River, whereas downtown Cleveland ends above the east bank of the Cuyahoga... where it then becomes heavily industrialized in use (this was even more true historically). There is also significant elevation change and a winding river path that cannot match up with a street grid in Cleveland, whereas in Chicago, it's pancake flat and the river is basically a straight canal.
It's just a much different situation in terms of use, topography, need, and hydrology.
|
yep. the two could not be more different. it's a perfect example of a map being incredibly deceiving and especially so for anyone coming from a flat chicago perspective.
the cuyahoga is as much a tall, wide and sloping valley as it is a crooked winding river down at it's riverfront. that requires a unique mix of both towering high level bridges and small, river crossing bridges. if you are down in the flats, you can use i think five small usable bridges around there, which is sufficient. or seasonal water taxis. if you are going across town, you use the high level bridges, which are also fine.
as for more? well, they just rebuilt the old high level innerbelt bridge into the dual span voinovich bridge. outside of that, i have heard talk of remaking the small train bridge at the mouth of the river pedestrian friendly. also, a much more fun idea than another bridge -- for an urban aerial tramway/gondola system:
http://www.clevelandskylift.com/
