NorthShore64

This revised site plan definitively less "striking" as the initial proposal as expected. It is also less dense, meaning there is even less space for the necessary surface parking. Worst of all this plan is definitively turning its back on the Redline and Airport (and potential Amtrak infill station one day). The potential for an Airport or Transit oriented development is arguably the most compelling point of this (or any) development on this parcel. Turning that down for a development oriented towards an I-71 off ramp is a tremendous disappointment. EDIT - 300,000 sqft of Retail??? How would you fill that out without poaching from Great Northern and Southern Park (two of the most stable malls in the metro). For reference the primarily retail focused Pinecrest off Harvard has around 400,000 sqft. Sure you might be able to pull in some new businesses not already in the region (or more experiential / entertainment focused ones), but I think they'll need to poach to round this out. 500,000 sqft of Office??? The total existing Southwest submarket has 500,000 of Class A today (according to Colliers). If you include the West submarket, there's ~2.5 million sqft of Class A on the west side (Cuyahoga cities plus the Avons/North Ridgeville). How would you lease that out without poaching from surrounding suburbs (or downtown)?

AT&T Stadium in Arlington TX was funded by Jerry. Someone should tell the people of Arlington Texas Business Report: How Taxpayers Subsidized Construction of Cowboys Stadium Rob Heidrick - Jan. 21, 2013 - Texas Monthly "The city of Arlington approved a total of $325 million in bonds backed by a half-cent increase in city sales tax, 2% increase in the hotel motel tax, and a 5% increase in the car rental tax. A second set of bonds, $147.9 million were issued to fund the stadium. This set of bonds are backed by ticket and parking taxes." https://www.ncsl.org/fiscal/stadium-game-back-in-play#:~:text=The city of Arlington approved,by ticket and parking taxes. Adjusted for inflation, that's ~$550 million taxpayer dollars to build Jerry World (Jones is worth over $15 billion)

that's actually not true, but ok There are so few stadiums in the US that are not subsidized with tax dollars. There are over 100 pro sports venues in the US, and I can only think of a handful that were "privately funded." There is MetLife, Gillette and SoFi in the NFL. Giants stadium in San Francisco (and the really old ballparks that predate these handouts). T-Mobile in Vegas and Ballmer's new arena Intuit were privately funded. A few newer MLS venues were as well. It is worth noting that even most of these private venues have some sort of local tax exemption (which is definitely a form of taxpayer assistance) or received public funding for surrounding infrastructure improvements. I am likely forgetting a few, but they won't change that ~95% of pro sports venues in the United States receive publics subsidies.

Because almost every pro sports venue is publicly subsidized everywhere. There's a handful that the owners actually ponied up for, but it's rare. For a prime example of this whole process, take a look ~5 hours down the road in Chicago (3rd largest media market). The debate going on there and how the issue is framed (by the ownership group, media members and state/local elected officials) is remarkably similar to what is happening in Cleveland. Existing lakefront stadium, city handouts not enough, inner ring suburb relocation site (Arlington Heights / Brookpark), surrounding development potential, an uninterested response from local and state governments. The McCaskey's are however much poorer (and arguably worse at running an NFL team) than the Haslams. Bears Ask Taxpayers for $2.4B Subsidy to Build $4.75B Domed Stadium Along Lakefront Bears' $5B Arlington Heights plan will hinge on taxpayer funding options It is at least somewhat reassuring that this does happen everywhere.

A domed stadium HVAC requirements would include a massive chiller, dozens of massive air handlers and miles of duct work to keep over ~100 million cubic feet climate controlled. Utility costs would also see a significant increase when compared to a normal stadium. You would likely need to run some heat throughout the whole winter, including when it is likely empty for months between any events. A dome (even with the use of something like ETFE) will require a massive amount of structural steel that will also need to be maintained and cleaned (all ~8 acres of it). But hey, at least an artificial turf field is slightly less expensive to maintain than a grass field. Initial maintenance costs may be low, but will steadily rise. I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that annual maintenance would be around ~2% of the structure's current value (there are a lot of variables, but this is a normal rate for many buildings). If we use the Haslam's $2.4 billion figure (assuming no cost increases like Buffalo's which was around ~25%), then we could expect an annual maintenance cost of $48,000,000. Are the Haslam's going to pay that, or will it fall to some new stadium authority? Would county general funds be at risk if the intended revenue streams for stadium maintenance come up short (as they have for existing facilities)?

An enclosed building is more protected from the elements potentially reducing maintenance costs. Are those savings greater than the maintenance costs for the roof of an enclosed facility? How about the necessary building systems for an enclosed structure?

Gateway North project site prep / tank removal (11-6-24) JCU Field House progress

The Marquee (11-6-24)

(11-6-24)

Strong Towns story on Maumee:

There was a special presentation at today's CPC meeting on the cities Economic Incentive Scorecard (for projects over $250,000). The presentation has a lot of interesting information on the scorecard process. Scoring is subject to change as the city is still in a testing period. If/when implemented, this new method could greatly influence development patterns throughout the city. Here is the breakdown for a Mixed-Use project scoring (point categories largely overlap between the 4 main): Commercial and Industrial has an interesting additional scoring category of "Target Industry"

CPC signed off on the City's agreement with Bequest Builders for the sale of land bank properties in South Glenville. This would complete an initial agreement between the city and another developer that saw the completion of 6 homes. Bequest will finish homes on the remaining 20 lots at a pace of 5 homes per year. 3 bedroom, 2.5 bath, dethatched garage. Moving target price of ~$330,000

City acquisition of the former Dave's Market at 15900 Lakeshore Blvd. across from Euclid Beach was approved at todays CPC meeting. The building will be placed into the City's Land Reutilization Program for the Department of Economic Development. *EDIT* Same meeting also included the necessary authorizations for a Villaview Road resurfacing east of Waterloo along the sound wall.

Stanford Townhomes received final approval at todays CPC meeting. 6 Townhome unit development just west of Pearl across from Metro. The project is on a vacant lot that was once the site of a failed duplex development that stalled sometime before the great recession.

The Women's Religious Archives Collaborative Heritage Center received final design approval for their new building on East 22nd at todays CPC meeting. Project groundbreaking is planned for March. Some more information on the project:

Sherwin-Willi from last week

Views from Seidman and Lakeside buildings at UH from this past week. Four cranes outside of downtown in one shot. Possibly joined by the East Stokes crane before work is finished at the innovation district.

From Seidman From RedLine

And dev team said they would return in a month (Oct 15th meeting) for (I'm assuming) schematic approval. Yeah I thought I heard that as well, but wasn't sure. In general very positive comments on the development itself and the speed at which they are moving.

East Stokes just received conceptual approval from todays CPC meeting. Here are a few images of the sites floorplan:

Study PDFs: Study 1: Valuing Burke Lakefront Airport - Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis Study 2: AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN NARRATIVE REPORT WORKING PAPER #4: BKL CLOSURE ALTERNATIVE