LlamaLawyer

As long as the dollars and cents add up, putting the stadium and related development on Burke seems to me like a complete no-brainer. The airport currently loses the city something like $10 million a year. So if you amortize over 30 years, the city gets about $250 million of "free" money to contribute to the stadium, assuming Jimmy demands something, which he will. The land is currently mostly pavement that cannot be developed as anything other than pavement due to federal law (e.g. runway). If you turned the entire thing into a parking lot, you would have improved on that, since you now have pavement that isn't losing money and at least could be turned into something else at such time as it's economical to do so. But, the entire thing will not be parking lot. At 450 acres, Burke is almost incomprehensibly big. The entire Cleveland zoo (including the monster parking lots) is roughly 165 acres. If you give 225 acres of Burke to Haslam and the rest to the metroparks, the metroparks would have a new space, 60 acres *bigger* than the zoo, right on the lake. Even if for a long time it's just grass, it would be a big improvement. Go to lower Edgewater by the piers. It's basically just grass, but it's full of people flying kites, events every other weekend, drum circles and dancing, etc. It will take a long time to fully realize Burke's potential, and that's totally okay, because it will still be a big improvement in the meantime. I do get the concern about putting a hundred acres of new parking and a stadium on the lakefront, but you're getting so much in exchange, and as others pointed out above, there is not an infinite demand for parking, and so some lots closer to downtown will be more likely to get developed as a result. I like to play the circumstance switching game with this kind of thing. Let's take the worst case scenario of Haslam developing Burke. If we right now had on Burke: 1. a stadium, 2. a crap ton of parking, 3. some amount of kind of lame development, and 4. a bunch of empty grassy area that the metroparks didn't know how to manage well, would anyone in their right mind suggest getting rid of items 1-4 and replacing it with an airport? I don't think so. And I think in the long term what we end up with will be a lot better than the items 1-4 above. So to me, this is a golden chance to solve two major problems in one fell swoop, and as long as it's economical (which I suspect it is) we should do so.

Any of us on this forum could go set out more outdoor tables and chairs if we wanted. What are they going to do, accuse you of littering? I'm serious though, if somebody wants to fix this, you could just knock on the doors of a few businesses, say "hey do you mind if I set up tables and chairs on the street?" They'll either say "um, what?" or "yes please!" and then you just set out $500 worth of outdoor furniture. 90% chance it works out great and everyone is happy.

Unironically though, this is why Cleveland is great. We have so much undeveloped, quality urban land that we don't even know what to do with. It will take decades, but we'll find something to use it for eventually. The available space will make it easier to grow in the coming decades.

Hot diggity dog. Here's a nonpaywalled article: https://www.clevescene.com/food-drink/arthur-treachers-fish-and-chips-coming-back-to-cleveland-heights-after-35-years-44995853

Looks like a great project and great location. That green space has never seemed to be well utilized any time I have been there. A green space about half that size, and with a café nearby, should be a lot better. Also, though, I've gotta say that if I were one of the 300 or so UH employees laid off this summer in order to "cut costs," I would be a little miffed at UH for embarking on what's basically an elective $30 million vanity project...

This is a problem in most American metros to one degree or another. But I think the heart of the problem is that continued outward expansion requires building new expensive infrastructure while wasting the existing infrastructure in the built-out environment. Brook Park has a population that is down 40% from the peak more than 50 years go, which would lead me to think new development in Brook Park is more akin to revitalizing the depopulated urban core than subsidized suburban growth. Definitely, I prefer developing the urban core over outward suburban expansion. But some of the posts above are talking about *annexation* as if the issue is not the location itself, but the mere fact that the location is not in Cleveland proper. There's also not a discussion of annexation of all of Brook Park to consolidate city services (which might be a good idea regardless of where the stadium is). There's just an assumption that we are better off developing Cleveland proper rather than say, Lakewood, which is actually denser than Cleveland is, or Brook Park, which at its peak population was about as dense as Cleveland is now. That's really the idea that I take issue with. In my heart, I really want the City of Cleveland to succeed, and I obviously care about the City of Cleveland more than Brook Park. But it seems like what's best for Cleveland probably depends on revenue/expense ratios for a stadium, moreso than having/not having a stadium.

The BLS adjustment was really bad. It suggests that payrolls have been hugely overstated and helps explain some of the big variance between the establishment survey and household survey. This is a national issue, not just a Cleveland issue. That being said, Education and Health Services payrolls were actually revised *up*, and by a decent margin. Which is good news for Cleveland, since it's our biggest (and perhaps most important) employment sector.

Just think it should be pointed out that the nation's five highest GDP per-capita metros with a population over 500,000 are: 1. San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA MSA 2. San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley, CA MSA 3. Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA MSA 4. Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH MSA 5. Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT MSA Each of these metros has a GDP per capita of more than $100,000. Each also has *dozens* of towns and cities. I'm all for regionalism, but I don't think you can by any means argue that consolidation is "the most important thing" when clearly the most prosperous metros in the U.S. never consolidated. With every acre you annex comes more expense--that's a guarantee. Sometimes, but not always, additional revenue comes with too. It's not at all clear that the stadium will be revenue positive for the host city. The current one definitely isn't. And as far as a "legacy city" not having as much appeal, other than Seattle, I don't think any of the main cities in those metros (San Jose, San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, Bridgeport) have an NFL stadium within city limits. The 49ers' stadium isn't even in the right metro! (It's in Santa Clara, which is in the San Jose metro). So I don't think the location of the stadium is going to hold back our economy given it hasn't done so for 4/5 of the most prosperous major metros.

I actually 100% agree with what you're saying here. My point isn't about funding at all, it's just that in the abstract, we shouldn't act like every single cool new thing has to go downtown, and in fact developing many nodes throughout the region is probably preferable. That being said, I personally think the order of priorities should be as follows: Priority 1 should be putting in as LITTLE public money from the region as possible. Priority 2 should be having Haslam, the State of Ohio, and the feds spend as MUCH money as possible. Priority 3 should be seeking a development that makes sense in every functional aspect, including design, location, etc.

I'm optimistic the development could be better than what you're describing. But if you're right, isn't that an argument *against* putting the development on irreplaceable lakefront land? By guiding every new project into downtown, you also put every failure in downtown. Again, I'm not debating that downtown would be a great place for the stadium. But there are valid, urban-centric reasons that Brook Park is a reasonable alternative.

This is an important part of my point. If the plan were to build the stadium out in Chardon or Ravenna, I would be dead set against that. As I've expressed repeatedly, I think that the lakefront (specifically where Burke is now) *is* the best overall location for the stadium. But Brook Park is an inner ring suburb. There is literally a heavy rail line that goes to the site. I would think red line usage will increase if the stadium moves to Brook Park. There are a lot of people who live downtown and would love to take the rapid right to the stadium. People are commenting that Brook Park isn't very walkable, and I agree it's not! But how will that ever change unless new development happens in Brook Park? Similarly, of course Germany has better transit than the U.S. I think the different style of urban design is a primary reason for that fact! Isn't the whole point of transit-oriented development that you're focusing on various hubs that are connected by public transit? That's exactly what the Brook Park location is. Public transit works well if you have a bunch of walkable hubs that people can take transit to and from (like European cities). It works less well if you one dense central area that progressively becomes more diffuse as you get farther from the center (like most American cities). I'm as anxious as anyone is to grow the region, but I don't think you do that telling people and businesses exactly where and how to relocate into your region. If we adopt an attitude of "you can invest your money here, but it better be downtown!" that is going to result in less (not more) total investment in the region.

July BLS numbers are out for Cleveland, and they're somewhat better: https://www.bls.gov/regions/midwest/oh_cleveland_msa.htm Basically flat y/o/y job growth, but we're back in the black for overall labor force growth y/o/y which is a relief. I'm still pretty skeptical about the numbers overall. On that note--I've seen a couple stories now about a potential one million job downward revision coming to job data tomorrow. Hopefully the Ohio metros don't get a huge share of that.

There's a bunch of money that's been allocated to the lakefront project already. If we just get out of our own way (e.g. remove the shoreway, create a landbridge) I would think developers would be just drooling over the lakefront land, even if the city doesn't have money to do anything with the land on its own. I'm pretty neutral on the stadium location. It seems to me like a lot of people have the general concern that putting development downtown is a priority and so we're screwing ourselves by putting major development other places. I think this concern is pretty overblown. We realistically need to have dozens of walkable 15-minute-cities in the region, and there's no reason that part of Brook Park can't be one. Actually, proximity to transit and the airport makes it a pretty good location for one. Cuyahoga County and the surrounding area is quite built out. While I hate the idea of continuing to sprawl further and further into the country, that's not at all what Brook Park is. I think we should be supportive of dense urban development wherever it occurs in the already-built-out urban areas. Compare to this area of Germany. The area in the image is about the same land area as Cuyahoga+Summit+Medina Counties, but it has nearly six million people. All the development is incredibly urban and incredibly dense. Notice how there are several urban centers of various sizes without any one being an obvious spoke in the center of the wheel. This is good urban design. Another example is America's most prosperous area, the bay area, which has several major economic centers as opposed to just one. I think Downtown Cleveland is always going to be the primary urban center of the region. But it's healthy for us to have a number of vibrant urban centers.

If they're smart, the Georges would try to sell Townhall. The bad publicity will all blow over if there's enough coverage about the new management (which there would be). There are some good people who work there, it's a powerful brand, great location, and some good food. The big problem is ownership, and if the Georges are smart they have an opportunity to help out their former employees by keeping the place afloat while also getting some money out of a business that would otherwise have a hard time staying afloat.

Since it's the U.N., it's metric instead of imperial.

Maybe I missed it, but is the idea of a stadium development on Burke totally dead? Is there some report out there saying that it wouldn't be feasible to extend the Browns' current lease until say 2030, 2031, somewhere in there, and build a new development on Burke thereafter?

June BLS numbers are in. Thoroughly meh. https://www.bls.gov/regions/midwest/oh_cleveland_msa.htm Household and Employer survey are both almost totally flat y/o/y. The surveys are at least relatively consistent with each other, but I have trouble trusting the numbers a lot at this point.

On principle, I strongly, strongly reject the idea of this "special commission." I love voluntary regionalism, e.g. city governments working together. There is also some regionalism that the people want but local government gets in the way of (e.g. East Cleveland merger; I am sure almost all people in EC want it). That kind of regionalism is good too, and we should be willing to take power from ineffective city government and give it to the people. But, on principle, I don't like the idea of forcing exurban and rural communities to join in urban projects. I really doubt that the people of Ashtabula County want to pay extra sales tax for the rest of their lives in order to pay for a stadium and airport in Cleveland. I don't want to have to take into account the preferences of someone in Ashtabula or Lake County about how the Cleveland lakefront is going to be used. They can do whatever they want with their own lakefronts (and pay for it, without asking Cleveland for help), and we can do whatever we want with our own lakefront (and pay for it, without asking the exurbs for help).

@KJP, great reporting. Could end up being one of your most consequential stories, no? Any idea when the city’s announcement may come? Are we talking weeks, months?

Thanks, all. That makes sense. What I'm gathering is that there's no fundamental logistical reason the airport couldn't be improved to substitute Burke; it's just a neighborhood outrage problem. Which, to be fair, I understand more than most NIMBY issues, because living right by an airport is a pain.

This may be a dumb question because I'm somewhat uninformed, but why couldn't County theoretically be reconfigured to accommodate all flights that Burke currently does? It looks like there's plenty room on the current parcel if you just adjust the angle of the runway. Compare the two images below.

I agree, but even if the Home Depot part stays a Home Depot, you could do something really cool with the rest. It's about 45 acres excluding the Home Depot parcel. I think that's 2x the size of the entire Van Aken development (including the phases that aren't built yet). Which just shows how much potential the area has. A reasonable development could conceivably include over 1,000 new units of housing.

@KJP Really great and thorough reporting. You must have spent a good while reading through that appropriations bill. Do you have the total on special projects funding in Cuyahoga County? It's gotta be close to $100 million, no? Has any previous state budget given this area a remotely similar amount of money? Seems like a very generous handout.

https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/developer-steps-in-at-long-ailing-severance-town-center-in-cleveland-heights Huge (and long-overdue) news for one of the biggest underutilized sites in the east side suburbs. City officials and residents are all impressed by Van Aken District in Shaker, and so I would expect there will be a big push to do the same kind of thing here. I looked up the new developer and they don't seem to have extensive experience delivering on this kind of project. Hopefully something good happens here in the next few years.

Sorry, fair point. I modified my above comment to substitute a better example.