NorthShore64

(8-7/13-24)

Looks like ~8 primary buildings, max height 10-12 stories. The stadium is roughly centered in the lot, but the development points directly south of the stadium towards Snow Road. This puts surface lots between the stadium/development and potential connections to the airport and Red Line (possibly due to FAA restrictions?). I would estimate the total development area with central plaza closer to ~25 acres, near my estimated maximum available area. Some grabs of the mixed use development / site layout from the video:

Construction of two of five mixed-use buildings in Valor Acres scheduled to begin this month Bob Sandrick - CPD - Aug. 6, 2024 "Five proposed buildings in the mixed-use section of Valor Acres have been given final approval by the Brecksville Planning Commission and City Council. ... Construction of two of the five buildings is scheduled to begin this month. Work on a third building is expected to start in the fall, according to Josh Decker, project executive with DiGeronimo Development."

On Friday I discussed the surface parking needs restricting the size of the mixed use development at the Brookpark site. To create space for a sizable mixed use development I only provided space for roughly 16,000 surface parking spots. Based on the 20,000 parking spot figure from Ken’s article, the mixed use development site will need to shrink considerably on my rough stadium proposal site plans. I had previously thought that an area around ~15 acres would be too small a development to make a Brookpark stadium worthwhile. For a suburban size comparison, 15 acres is about 75% of Pinecrest in Orange: Here is a look at how the Brookpark site could look with the (necessary) increase in surface parking. This mixed use development proposal has about 400,000 square feet of buildable space. Realistically the best case for that ~400,000 sqft. of land might look something like; two hotels, a University Hospitals outpatient facility (sports medicine?), a Class A office building and four apartment buildings. Most structures (nothing taller than a 5 over 2) would have ground floor commercial space for restaurants/bars and a limited retail component. Ideally this would all be built between a new RTA infill station at the NW corner of the lot and the stadium, creating the largest TOD development west of Ohio City. There isn't land for additional buildings, and the inner-ring suburb real estate market in Cleveland may not be able to support much more than this.

I could see this kind of going the Pittsburgh route - a lot of the surface parking around Heinz Field/PNC Park has slowly been converted into (mostly) restaurants and parking garages going in as the area evolves. Thing is, a lot of the parking garages are privately owned by their parking king, Alco Parking. Some metrics put the average cost of a parking structure at well over $25,000 per spot to build. For some very rough calculations: If you want to cover the cost of building the parking structure in 20 years for a stadium that sees ~13 events per year, you would need to charge ~$90 per event. This does not factor in parking garage upkeep costs, cost of borrowing, inflation. Basically for a facility that only needs the parking for less than 0.7% of the year, you can only turn a profit on parking if it is a surface lot. The parking facilities could hypothetically be used as airport parking in the offseason to generate extra revenue, however this could only really work if their are no additional events scheduled when in "airport parking mode." Structured parking for the mixed use development would be difficult to justify when it is surrounded by thousands of empty parking spots for over literally 99% of the year.

Depending on where your seats new will be in the new stadium, you may likely be paying thousands for the Personal Seat License (PSL) to just get the right to continue being a season ticket holder in the new venue. Tennessee and Buffalo fans are facing this now with their new stadiums. We are talking well over $10,000 for club and many lower bowl seats. The cheapest PSL's for the "worst" seats in the new stadium may be closer to the ~$1,000 mark. Even if current seasons ticket holders can swing the one time PSL, the significant ticket price increase may also turn them away. Thousands of people who gave significant portions of their lives over to the Browns will be priced out. Season ticket holder shocked at $400,000 price tag to keep seats at the new Bills Stadium 'It's Wrong!' Buffalo Bills' Ticketing Prices Ripped by Erie County Executive Bills fans are experiencing “major sticker shock” on PSL prices - "Melissa Taylor’s family has had season tickets for 56 years. She learned that the PSLs for her seats will cost $20,000 each when the new venue opens in 2026. 'It was heartbreaking,' she told the News. 'I walked out of there thinking, ‘Do I just have two seasons left?'"

Case expands parking = "Now L'Albatros will probably wither away" ??? The new Humanities building is likely years away also. Post pandemic Bruell and his son seemed to turn a lot of his focus back to L'Albatros. They have a long track record of success in Cleveland dinning, especially with L'Albatros which has garnered national attention. If they want to keep going, I like their chances. "Bunch of chain crap" Not including Build the Pho, Falafel Cafe, Otani, Lee's, Indian Flame, Sittoo's, Kantina, Phusion Cafe, Mitchell's, Kenko... The delivery app driver double parking on Euclid is an (unrelated) issue though. It can be pretty frustrating, especially east bound Euclid before Mayfield. Cities across the country are struggling with how to effectively manage the increase in delivery services. Creating new designated "Pick-up/Drop-off" zones could help ameliorate the situation.

Lol Last night I was showing my girlfriend the renderings and she said the exact same thing. And the Ford engine plant, high voltage lines, warehouse, moat of freeways (around the moat of surface parking), separate long term parking facilities, miscellaneous light industry, active railyard, construction suppliers... None of these things are "bad" for a city / region to have. They are just maybe not the best location for a high impact mixed use development.

I'm pretty sure they nixed the idea because the city didn't want to go around eminent domaining everyone in the neighborhood or fighting with someone who believes their dilappedated garage is worth $10M. I had previously considered a northeast downtown stadium site extensively when trying to identify all possible regional stadium locations earlier this year. Just in case anyone was interested in the prospect of a stadium here, and why it was / should be excluded: There are only really two land agglomerations you could make along St. Clair (with vacated Lakeside/Hamilton) for a browns stadium. West of Cleveland Thermal would require the demolition of a High School (and WKYC, FBI Field Office building, city EMS HQ...) , east would require the demolition of the state's largest homeless shelter. Both would require require the demolition of some 20 small businesses employing hundreds. One of the many factors that led to downtown Cleveland's deterioration in the post war years was the large scale destruction of city blocks on its periphery (Erieview), wiping out entire business communities. Downtown is still trying to recover from these demolitions. We don't need to be repeating the disastrous mistakes of the past for a facility used ~12 days a year. It would be fine if the Haslams worked on the land agglomeration themselves (while relocating local public services), but the city shouldn't be burning through the political capital necessary to accomplish such a feat. Here is a very rough look at either site option and the likely minimal amount of lots necessary. This does not include additional acquisitions for a stadium adjacent mixed use development. TL;DR - Reminder that the northeast downtown stadium option would have been incredibly difficult. Demo homeless shelter, or high school?

Latest plans for downtown Cleveland lakefront show city could revamp Shoreway with or without Browns Stadium Steven Litt- CPD - Aug. 4, 2024 "Fresh details, shared before Monday’s event with cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer, show how the Shoreway could be scaled down from eight to four lanes and from 50 mph to 35 mph without causing traffic chaos on the lakefront or downtown streets. ... Later this month, the city and NCWDC plan to issue a request for qualifications from engineering firms to continue to work toward bid-ready documents. Under a best case scenario, if the federal government awards the $268 million grant this fall, construction could start before the end of 2026, Skinner said."

Oh I hadn't heard that. That'd be nice to keep it a unique street. Notice from the City: Hessler Court Wooden Brick Restoration Project Traffic Advisory "The project will remove the existing wood bricks and replace with new wood bricks, replace sandstone sidewalk and curbs, drill weep holes for drainage, install new catch basins, and ADA complaint curb ramps. The work will take place during the hours of 7 a.m. to 5 p.m, Monday through Friday. The brick restoration project is expected to be completed by the end of August 2024. "

Consultants hired to help develop plans for two passenger routes Trains.com - Trains Staff - Aug. 8, 2024 "The City of Fort Wayne, Ind., working with the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission and the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission, has hired Kansas City-based HNTB Corp. to help develop the Service Development Plan required under the Corridor ID process. That plan covers the scope, schedule, and budget for full planning for a Chicago-Fort Wayne-Columbus, Ohio-Pittsburgh route." Fort Wayne Press Release: "The Corridor ID program garnered additional support from several key stakeholders, including the Northern Indiana Passenger Rail Association (NIPRA), Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission (NIRPC), Michiana Area Council of Governments (MACOG), Northeastern Indiana Regional Coordinating Council (NIRCC), Lima/Allen County Regional Planning Commission (LACRPC), Licking County Area Transportation Study (LCATS), Ohio Mid-Eastern Governments Association (OMEGA), and Brooke-Hancock-Jefferson Metropolitan Planning Commission (BHJTS). The program also received advocacy from the Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania Departments of Transportation."

Can't help but add to the shi*post but The Firm was on last night and made me deep dive into the 'Mud Island Monorail', maybe we can get one going to/from the airport! Maybe if we're lucky we get a bass pro pyramid too. Hey if we are looking at a building a monorail, maybe extend it to the IX center. There was a people mover concept to serve the IX Center in one of the Rapid extension proposals to Berea years ago. There would be room for a Bass Pro Shop next door! Or maybe even just convert the entire IX center into a Bass Pro Shop! It worked in Tennessee. / s

FWIF the proposed structure has a 150 spot unground parking garage, roughly 50% more parking than the two current surface lots. Faculty parking 9-5, patron parking in the evening.

Parking requirements for a stadium are significant. Parking requirements for the suburban Brookpark location limit the amount of available land to be developed as a mixed use complex stadium village. By my count, no more than ~27 acres of land could be used for the stadium village. The ~27 acre figure does not include roadways/public spaces within the stadium village. Buildable land total would be closer to ~20 acres. If you want more space for a mixed use component, you either need to build costly structured parking for the stadium or acquire more nearby land. - NOTE - This is being extremely generous with the parking totals needed. ~102 acres of surface parking as shown in the proposed site plan is roughly ~16,000 parking spots. That total is likely too low for the site (minimal parking alternatives within walking distance) even if you factor in thousands arriving via the RedLine. For a comparison to suburban developments in the region, ~27 acres is roughly the size of the initial phase of Crocker Park. This is just for comparison in terms of scale, not what the development composition would look like in Brookpark. The region certainly doesn't have the capacity for another shopping focused development (especially one at a site within ~15 minutes of two of the regions last shopping malls). The buildings could be larger at the Brookpark site, but I don't see any way that there would be financing for a structure greater in size than a "5 over 2" stick frame 7-story building. TL;DR - Mixed use development "Stadium village" at Brookpark cannot exceed ~27 acres. Development area is likely smaller due to stadium parking requirements. This is all speculative, but the public should have some sort of an idea of what is actually possible when we are talking about using so much public money. The Haslams have given the public very little information about key components of the entire project. We should all question what could actually be done at Brookpark to see if the Haslams can actually implement their vision. Gilbert, a man who has a long track record of successful urban development projects, first bought land behind tower city in 2010. He didn't break ground on a project there for 14 years.

One of the most important factors in the stadium decision is adjacent development opportunities. Earlier this year I made a rough proposal for what I thought a Brookpark Stadium redevelopment could look like. As I have said in earlier comments: Parking requirements for a stadium are significant. Parking requirements for the suburban Brookpark location limit the amount of available land to be developed as a mixed use complex stadium village. By my count, no more than ~27 acres of land could be used for the stadium village. The ~27 acre figure does not include roadways/public spaces within the stadium village. Buildable land total would be closer to ~20 acres. If you want more space for a mixed use component, you either need to build costly structured parking for the stadium or acquire more nearby land. - NOTE - This is being extremely generous with the parking totals needed. ~102 acres of surface parking as shown in the proposed site plan is roughly ~16,000 parking spots. That total is likely too low for the site (minimal parking alternatives within walking distance) even if you factor in thousands arriving via the RedLine. For a comparison to suburban developments in the region, ~27 acres is roughly the size of the initial phase of Crocker Park. This is just for comparison in terms of scale, not what the development composition would look like in Brookpark. The region certainly doesn't have the capacity for another shopping focused development (especially one at a site within ~15 minutes of two of the regions last shopping malls). The buildings could be larger at the Brookpark site, but I don't see any way that there would be financing for a structure greater in size than a "5 over 2" stick frame 7-story building. TL;DR - Mixed use development "Stadium village" at Brookpark cannot exceed ~27 acres. Development area is likely smaller due to stadium parking requirements.

This project also requires the demolition of 11333 bellflower. I speculated on the buildings future when it was acquired/boarded up in summer of 2022. The building was initially proposed for demolition last year (to be replaced with a "temporary" surface lot) and was disapproved. Funding for the new humanities facility is still in question.

Conceptual Design Review for CWRU's new Humanities Building massing study (8-2-24 CPC). University humanities consolidation into 100/150k sq ft building on Bellflower. Replace surface parking with underground deck. "very early in the process"

Baltimore got a 15 year lease extension after $600 million from the state for renovations. Charlotte got a 20 year lease extension (with a 15 year opt out) after $650 million from the city for renovations. Jacksonville got a 30 year lease extension after $750 million from the city for renovations. I don't think state assistance would be greater than ~$50 million. That puts us at just over $500 million (with maybe something from county?) I would be surprised if that got us to 20 years. Maybe 15 with a conditional 5 year extension.

They probably could, but I don't think the Browns actually need that much money. $450 million in preferential treatment seems sufficient to me. We got $36 million from the state for the browns stadium in 1997 ($71 adjusted for inflation), Cincy got $50 million for PBS in the 1998. Progressive got $30 million for its renovation in 2022. I think the Haslam's could get something a little over ~$30 million for this renovation from the state.

Some very messy back of the napkin math: If we include preseason, and assume the 1 / 2 games sell out, there are 674,310 tickets sold is a 10 game season (last season attendance averaged above CBS capacity, but only by about ~380 per game). To generate $227 million over 30 years, that would require an average of ~$11.25 in admission tax revenue per ticket sold. This figure also doesn't include the existing admission tax revenue which would presumably contribute to the $227 million figure. Inflation is not factored into this figure. The stadium renovations may decrease capacity again, so admission tax per ticket would need to be slightly higher. This figure also assumes that admission tax revenue comes just from Browns Stadium, not other events in the city. This also doesn't include other events at CBS, however the stadium has averaged less then one concert per season - with most drawing less than 50,000. Other ticket events (when they do happen) draw even less. This offseason with 2 concerts and Summer Slam is a significant outlier that may not be repeated again for years. Again this is not due to the physical stadium, but rather the size of the greater Cleveland / NEO market. Some may baulk an increase in admission tax, but it is certainly cheaper than the ticket price increase we would see at a new stadium in Brookpark. If you include the cost of PSL's at a new Brookpark stadium, an increase to the admission tax is significantly cheaper for season ticket holders. Also I don't see the Haslams signing on for a 30 year lease extension for only $461 million. You only really get 30 year extensions out of NFL owners with new stadiums. I would expect a lease extension between 10-15 years for this offer, if the Haslams are even interested in the 461 figure. $227 million in admission tax over 10 years would be ~$33.75. TL;DR - Only an average of ~$11.25 in additional admission tax per ticket to generate $227 million over 30 years (~$33.75 over 10)

Cleveland's admission tax is currently at 8%. I think the state limited maximum is 10%. From a signal article earlier this year: "By City Hall’s count, Browns stadium generated more than $67 million in revenue for the city between 2010 and August 2022: $44.8 million in admission taxes collected on ticket proceeds from games and concerts" If they can make an admission tax increase work (which looks considerable to reach that $227 million figure), I think that is an equitable funding mechanism. Let stadium visitors pay for the stadium.

U.S. Accuses Norfolk Southern of Delaying Amtrak Trains NY Times - Mark Walker and Peter Eavis - 7-30-24 "The Justice Department on Tuesday accused Norfolk Southern, one of the country’s largest freight railroad companies, of violating federal law by delaying Amtrak passenger trains along the route between New Orleans and New York. In a complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the Justice Department said Norfolk Southern failed to give Amtrak passenger trains preference over freight trains, as it is required to do under federal law." Justice Department Files Complaint Against Norfolk Southern to Stop Amtrak Passenger Train Delays Department of Justice Press Release - 7-30-24 The United States filed a civil complaint today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alleging that the Norfolk Southern Corporation and Norfolk Southern Railway Company (collectively, Norfolk Southern) delays passenger trains on Amtrak’s Crescent Route in violation of federal law. The Crescent Route, operated by Amtrak (also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corporation), is a 1,377-mile passenger line that stops at 33 towns and cities between New York City and New Orleans. Norfolk Southern controls 1,140 miles of rail line on the Crescent Route and handles dispatching for all trains along that segment, including freight trains it operates. Approximately 266,000 passengers traveled on the Crescent Route during 2023. That year, only 24% of southbound Crescent Route passenger trains traveling on Norfolk Southern-controlled track arrived at their destination on time. According to the complaint filed on July 30, federal law requires Norfolk Southern to give Amtrak passenger trains preference over freight trains. The complaint alleges that Norfolk Southern regularly fails to do so, leading to widespread delays that harm and inconvenience train passengers, negatively affect Amtrak’s financial performance, and impede passenger rail transportation. The complaint includes several examples of how Norfolk Southern’s failure to give passenger trains the required preference causes many of these delays. For example, on Jan. 1, an Amtrak train 10 miles outside of New Orleans was delayed for nearly an hour when Norfolk Southern dispatchers required it to travel behind a slow-moving freight train. On another occasion, Norfolk Southern dispatchers forced an Amtrak train to wait over an hour while allowing three separate freight trains to pass. In many cases, Norfolk Southern runs freight trains along the Crescent Route that, due to track limitations, are so long they cannot move to the side for passenger trains to pass them. “Americans should not experience travel delays because rail carriers break the law. Our action today alleges that Norfolk Southern violates federal law by failing to give the legally required preference to Amtrak passenger trains over freight trains,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. “The Justice Department will continue to protect travelers by ensuring that rail carriers fulfill their legal obligations.” “For half a century, federal law has required freight rail companies to give Amtrak passenger rail service preference on their tracks — yet compliance with this important law has been uneven at best,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. “We will continue to engage the railroad industry and work with Amtrak to ensure that freight railroads comply with their legal obligations and that Amtrak customers are not subjected to unacceptable, unnecessary, and unlawful delays.” Trial Attorneys Max Goldman, Amber Charles, and Pauline Stamatelos of the Civil Division’s Consumer Protection Branch are handling the case.

Cole (7-21-24) Neuro Innovation District

Loiter Café says opening stalled until Cuyahoga County Land Bank provides adequate power Paris Wolfe - Cleveland.com - July 19, 2024 "From Samad’s perspective, the major conflict now is whether the building’s electrical service is adequate enough to complete the cafe buildout and open it in time. ... Without adequate electrical service, Loiter can’t finish its build out, file for inspections and get permits, says Samad. And that means the non-profit cafe and market can’t open by its legally required August deadline."