Dino

I suspected that DeWine was in town to broker a mutually agreeable compromise. I.E. The State is open to providing funding to the Browns but doesn't want the political heat of betraying Cleveland. So I thought DeWine may have proposed the Browns contribute something towards the lakefront, the State would promise additional funding for the lakefront too, in exchange for the City/County agreeing to letting the Browns go. I guess this divorce just got ugly!

I’m not talking politics, but was there any news that came out of DeWine’s meetings with Haslam and Bibb?

^Ah...North Olmsted. The Brookpark of the professional indoor soccer world! Did they get state funding for the move? Hahaha.

There's already a primary tenant. Cleveland has pro team (even if it's second tier) in need of a stadium. Plus, Cleveland Crunch play at the IX Center, which kind of stinks. I acknowledge that the Metroparks wasn't planning to build it, but I'm suggesting they could. Building a public athletic facility doesn't seem like too big a stretch for a county institution specifically funded for and dedicated to parks and recreation. Maybe, maybe not. Force Sports, Lost Nation Sports Parks, and Spire Academy are just a few examples of businesses marketing year-round sports facilities. Is it a stretch to think that a much bigger version, located downtown and not in the suburbs, could succeed? Plus, as a tax payer funded entity, providing a tax payer benefit, the Metroparks wouldn't necessarily have to make a profit. None of their parks make a profit. It just as to reasonably cover operating expenses. But to your point, it doesn't have to be enclosed. It could still be an outdoor facility. I realize this isn't likely, and it's a much different version than the stadium that's currently proposed, but is it so crazy?

I'm disappointed, but $100M, to join a relatively new league? Seems steep. Men's USL has been around longer and has similar attendance numbers and their expansion fees are more like $20M. I really do hope they still build the stadium and develop the MLS Next team they actually do have. I think that would be the best path forward in securing an other pro soccer team. Speaking of the stadium, I hope the Metroparks can still step in and help get this stadium built. Even without the NWSL I think it could be financially viable. I think colleges, high schools and youth leagues would make good use out of a multi-purpose athletic facility, especially if they put a roof on it. It would still fit in with the Metroparks mission too. I mean Irishtown Bend will cost about $60M and produce no income. I gotta believe that $150M on an income producing sports facility isn't the worst idea in the world.

I don't understand why new purpose built stadiums are such a priority. Any insight on that? Existing MLS, college, and even a few high school stadiums could accommodate NWSL matches for several years before dedicated stadiums seem necessary. Many MLS teams do not have a dedicated stadium, and even some NFL teams share stadiums...

I was curious about the actual impact football games had on the hotel occupancy. Here is an article I found on the correlation between football games and hotel stays. It's from 2015, but seems relevant. According to this football games boost occupancy by 25% and generate about $2.8M annually in hotel stays. https://www.cleveland.com/travel/2016/09/which_cleveland_browns_home_ga.html I would agree with @coneflower It's not nothing, but... Consider the article below. The City gave SHW $100M, and in return is seeing about $9M in tax revenue per year. If each of the 3500 employees spends on average of $10 on lunch/coffee and $25 on parking, for 260 workdays, it surpasses the $30M in economic activity generated by Browns games. I'm sure my math isn't perfect, but it is clear that corporate subsidies provide way more bang for the buck. So, while there are many reasons to provide financial support to a sports team, I believe the economic argument alone is rather weak. https://www.cleveland.com/cityhall/2020/03/cleveland-approves-incentives-to-aid-sherwin-williams-development-of-300m-downtown-headquarters.html Just for fun...using those same SHW stats ($28.5k in subsidy per employee), the City could take the $461M it offered up to the Browns and instead keep or attract 16,175 employees to downtown Cleveland. Using the SHW numbers again, that would equal $41.5M in annual tax revenue, and at $35/day would equal $147M in economic activity per year. I know it's not as easy as that, but kind of fun to put it into perspective...kinda blows the Browns deal out of the water.

I happened to be in Brecksville yesterday and was able to snap a pic while at the red light.

You may be right, but if I owned the NWSL I wouldn't want to be in the same market as an MLS team. Having a City's soccer market to yourself would be a big advantage, wouldn't it? Plus the Caitlin Clark story seems a little bit like a last minute hail mary. If she was an owner all along, why wasn't it in the news before?

The headline is very misleading. The article says that the City gets about $11M in tax revenue generated by the Stadium, but also acknowledges that the City pays way more than that on maintaining and operating the stadium. So in reality, the City is shedding a financial burden instead of losing a cash cow as the headline implies. The article also states that the Stadium generates $30M in hotel, restaurant, and other economic activity for downtown. I don't know how they calculated that, but the headline implies that 100% of that immediately disappears when the Stadium moves. Even the article acknowledges that that won't happen because none of those amenities exist in Brookpark, nor will they any time soon. Even when if/when those things are built in Brookpark, it's a stretch to think that absolutely everyone wants to spend their entire visit to Cleveland So I think it's a stretch to argue that the city will be losing tens of millions. Every academic study (i.e. not commissioned by a team or municipality) that I've read has concluded that tax payer financed stadiums are basically economically neutral, or at best, the benefits are somewhat negligible. Because this study was commissioned by the City, it's no surprise that they say moving the stadium will be a huge economic loss. They are trying to leverage the Browns to staying on the Lakefront.

^Agreed. It's an area next to downtown and between two colleges. It has a ton of potential. I think a CSU residential village like the Langston would be a good use of the land. It would help "extend" the campus, and by proxy, downtown, across the highway and it would soften the market a little for more market rate housing.

You know, there's about 20 acres of land being used to connect I-77 to I-90. I know it will never happen, but if they could connect I-77 to I-90 either via I-490, or even via I-480/176, then you'd have enough space to put a new stadium. Bonus- The new stadium would be on ORANGE AVENUE! 🤣

I never thought they were threatening to leave the region, but this is a good point. In the whole stadium saga, land ownership seemed to be a deal breaker for the Haslams. And it made me wonder about Burke. If it landfill, just like the current site, is it also barred from being privately owned?

In the battle of the billionaires...who wins this round?

For those of us interested in these types of developments (I suspect there are a lot on this forum), we are lucky to be witnessing a tale of two waterfronts! We have two non-native Clevelander, billionaire sports team owners, with facilities downtown, who are involved in long term development plans that will greatly effect a long-neglected Cleveland waterfront with massive infrastructure challenges, and the approach each one is taking to bringing their vision into reality could not be more different. The Riverfront - Privately led, publicly approved. Private land ownership. Privately developed master plan. Downtown focused. Already starting construction. The Lakefront - Publicly led, privately rejected? Publicly owned land. Publicly developed master plan, Suburban focused (i.e. Browns reinvesting in Berea and now possibly Brook Park). Not near construction on anything. Anyone currently getting a Master's or PhD in Urban Planning or Real Estate Development? This would be an amazing case study on large scale urban revitalization projects!

I'm curious to hear what you think this civic leadership would look like? What should Bibb, Ronayne, DeWine, and other city/business leaders be doing to make this happen?

I've posted this before. Burke would be good a good site for the stadium, but I actually think the Port would be better. Seems like the Port could easily be replaced at the east end of Burke. I wonder why this has never been on the table.

This would be cool. Given the time and expense required to close Burke, does anyone have any idea what it would take to move the port? I would hope relocating the port would be cheaper and easier than the airport, and probably a more crucial piece of real estate from an urban design standpoint.

^I believe that is a training facility. It's all conceptual though.

It appears they will try to connect the new stadium to the riverfront development with pathways or via existing Canal or existing Commerce Rd. It's hard to tell from the renderings, and this is still conceptual anyway. Keep in mind though it would be about a one mile walk from the Cavs facility and the stadium will be about 50-100' higher than the riverfront. See the retaining walls at the bottom and right of the rendering

All of these points apply to the lakefront as well. That was my point. If the goal is to have a stadium that is integrated into the fabric of downtown, there are a lot of built in disadvantages. That said, I agree that this land is likely not well suited for a lot else, and having a stadium on the periphery of downtown is still ok. As far as urban stadium locations go, I'd give it a B-. I'd give the Lakefront an B+/A- with the Shoreway and LandBridge changes, and the potential for development. I think Progressive Filed is an A for urban stadium locations. I think the Wolstein Center site, Krenzler Field site, and Nautica parking lots could potentially be "A" sites, but, of course, it's not as easy as just picking whatever site you want.

First, i think the proposed location for the soccer stadium isn't perfect, but it's fine, and i'm not complaining. However, even with all the proposed suggestions regarding connections to downtown (and they are all good suggestions), this site will still be cut off from downtown by a large highway and train tracks. Even if it is not physically far from downtown, it will feel very separated from downtown. Every comment people have posted regarding the access/connectivity/retail attractions to the current Browns Stadium, will apply to the new soccer stadium. That said, I don't think its the end of the world, but I I think if you are looking for a stadium that's integrated into the urban fabric, I don't think you're going to get it at this location.

With all the talk of closing Burke, I wanted to get a better sense of the scale. The land at Burke is the equivalent of the land downtown between Lakeside and Superior, from the river to the Innerbelt. It is massive. Some also point to Meigs Field in Chicago as an example of what should be done with Burke. Burke is almost 4 times as big as Meigs Field.

^Yes. They’ve played matches there before.

So, if the Browns leave the lakefront, here's a hypothetical project idea... I would remove the upper deck of the existing stadium and rehab it into a smaller, 30-35,000 capacity, venue with a retractable roof. This would be primarily for soccer, but would be able to host other events too. Hotels, restaurants, and residential can still fill in the rest of the vacant land around it. Ideally, the stadium could be connected to the Convention Center too, maybe as part of the Landbridge. Pros It could host a Cleveland soccer team if we get one- maybe even gets us a shot at USL or MLS, in addition to NWSL It could host college or high school games It could become a concert alternative for shows bigger than RMFH can handle If combined with the convention center, maybe it would help the convention center bring more events downtown It could be used more than the existing stadium (45 events at 15,000 would surpass the Browns annual attendance) Funding The City has already secured $60M to remove the Shoreway and built a new RTA Station (more funding is very likely for future phases) The City has secured $20M for the Landbridge, with more funding very likely, in my opinion The City committed about $450M to the Browns, so let’s say they offer the same to this project Cleveland Soccer Group has committed $193M for it’s new soccer stadium and training facility (in return for $90M in public funding) The Metroparks already partnered with the Cleveland Soccer Group, so they could be involved in all the lakefront park space That’s already $725M committed!