Dino

Speaking of misinformation...does anyone know what the actual condition of the existing stadium is? Some people say that it was "hastily and cheaply built" and the location on the lake made it deteriorate faster than normal and all other kinds of stuff. I'm really skeptical of those claims. The Ravens stadium was built only one year earlier by the same architect, and its also close to the waterfront. I'm guessing the architect basically used the same plans because the stadiums look very similar. They are currently planning a $430M renovation over 3 years. I know we get harsher winters here, but I find it hard to believe that CBS is in much different condition. I guess it's possible, but I'm curious if the claims are legit or overblown. My gut says that like M&T Bank Stadium, Cleveland only really needs about $450M, but the Haslams simply WANT another $1B in renovations on top of that. I could be completely wrong, but I wonder if anyone really knows for real?

Surprisingly, soccer field dimensions are not set in stone, but 70 yards wide is the minimum, so CBS would definitely fit a pro soccer field. In fact CBS has hosted several soccer matches in the past. I love this idea. Ironically, a shorter stadium could probably even include a dome! (and heck yeah, paint those seats green for FCFC!)

This is only partially related, but I find the Gilbert/Blitzer Cosm investment intriguing. I've often wondered why sports teams keep investing in bigger and better stadiums as opposed to investing more in off-site venues like Cosm. I've often thought that in the future, sports would be played Covid style- with no live fans, but with everyone watching in these Cosm style movie theaters with way more up close action. Imagine watching a football game at one of these places. You could put cameras in players helmets and the broadcast could give you on field views and action.

Well, I think it was stated that the Haslam's responded to the offer with questions, so that will effectively push the deadline. But I agree that Bibb needs to stick to his guns now. If the Browns ultimately decline to stay on the lake, Bibb should move forward with lakefront planning without the Browns. It would be a shame to lose a major anchor downtown, but I also think that the City also has the chance to make something nice on the lake without the Browns and Bibb needs to keep that moving while it has momentum. I think only a third of NFL stadiums are downtown. It sure helps having more people downtown, but if we replace the stadium site with housing and office, the net result could be even better.

I think if you're Bibb, you don't do anything. I, personally, greatly respect that he drew a line in the sand, and once he did, other elected officials essentially backed up his position. I think he's put Cleveland in a good negotiating position. He hasn't given away too much if the Browns stay on the lake, but I also don't think the City loses too much if they go to Brook Park (most economic studies state that subsidies to sports teams are, at best, a wash).

^ Possible...YES! Likely? I'm not sure. Despite the playing fields being almost identical, the current trend in MLS is to have soccer specific stadiums. MLS crowds are roughly half that of NFL crowds and I'm guessing MLS doesn't like seeing half empty stadiums on TV, or the perception that soccer is playing second fiddle to football. Plus NFL and MLS owners alike, don't like to share. Maybe in the future if MLS consistently gets crowds in the 50-60k range this would be more likely to happen. Atlanta United averages 47k per game and shares a stadium with the Falcons. Makes perfect sense to me to encourage this trend. We need an MLS team first though!

^I suggested that at one point. i think it's a great idea. Another benefit is that a majority of the land is already publicly owned.

This is a good point. Each design is totally new instead of a refinement of a previous design. I think each design has been ok, and just needed some more detail or refinement, but instead they throw the whole thing out and start from scratch.

^Yes, moving the port would be a big undertaking, but if the City is prepared to invest in the relocation of an airport, it could move some train tracks too. I believe it was prepared to move the Port to E. 55th several years ago anyway. The main difference is that moving the port supports and enhances many investments already underway that are working towards a common vision. Its another brick in a comprehensive lakefront vision. My biggest objections to Brook Park and Burke are that they do not build off of anything; they are trying to reinvent the wheel. They are attempting to create a dense, live work neighborhood out of thin air when our downtown lakefront already has so many of the puzzle pieces in place. Bonus- moving the port allows us to make upgrades that maybe improves the port operations. Double bonus- You don't even necessarily have to move Burke or drastically change the current lakefront plans.

If Burke closes, the first thing I'd do is move the Port to Burke. Frankly, I don't know that you even need to close Burke to do that. The entire port facility would fit in the area east of Burke. That would free up the ability to develop all the way from the North Coast Harbor to Flats East Bank. Development in that area would be a lot easier to connect to downtown (not dealing with the Shoreway west of W. 3rd + future landbridge) and and it would support investments already made. or in the works (FEB, North Coast Harbor investments, Lakefront Plan, Landbridge, Convention Center, etc.) Trying to create a neighborhood from scratch over at Burke is an enormous lift and would undermine a lot of resources and initiatives that have already been focused on the area just north of downtown.

Well, until developers and hotel brands start doing their own due diligence that includes market analysis, market demographics, researching comps, and all that stuff, and until banks that make the loans start doing a similar underwriting process, how else are they supposed to know if a city has enough hotel rooms, if not for random comments at City Council meetings?

^I wonder if a portfolio of downtown parking lots will be listed for sale soon?

I personally would prefer buildings, restaurants, office, apartments, and density on the water in my city center, so I would choose development over greenspace. However, Cleveland is blessed with two waterfronts so we don't have to choose! We can have it all baby! Both Chicago and Milwaukee have dense development along their rivers and tons of greenspace along the lakefront. For a lot of reasons, I think that approach makes sense in Cleveland. My only wish is that the planners of the lakefront and riverfront would cooperate more. I wish there was more clarity of vision in Cleveland.

Agree to disagree. I'm proposing a new pedestrian bridge near the rapid station and there's the existing Center Street Bridge. Would more be better? maybe. But this would be plenty of access to "work". Plus, just as many people would already be hanging out on the West Bank as the East Bank- probably more in fact. Agree to disagree. I've been using Louisville's Stadium as a basis. I'm guessing it's about 6 stories tall. The west bank of the flats has many buildings of that height and it would be shorter than the Shoreway and several of the condos by Stonebridge. Plus it's just a stone's throw away from legit skyscrapers. Agree to disagree. Even with a stadium, there are about a dozen vacant lots on the west bank that could still accommodate 5-10 story buildings. I think it fits perfectly. Plus there's still 2 other peninsulas in the Flats that have even more room for development. There's plenty of vacant land to go around. Plus Nautica owns the site and half of the remaining sites in red, this would be a homerun for them.

I think the Intermodal site is fine. It is very, very similar to the site of Lower.com Stadium in Columbus, in my opinion. I've psoted this before, so I apologize, but if I could have my way, I'd put it at Nautica. "Nautica Queens" could be a fun team name! Haha. "Burning River FC" would be cool too. But seriously I wish the stadium could end up here. I'd love to have a beer on the river then walk to a game.

Is the Cavs building on the river considered a whale? If so, I'd say that's next. They already started the bulkhead work. If you count the bulkhead work, you could say that the Riverfront has already kind of started to happen.

Something else that is really surprising to me is that while NFL and MLB are increasingly going to indoor stadiums (it seems that way anyway) very few professional soccer teams play indoors. Atlanta is the only one I can think of - in the whole world! I wonder why that is? I feel like an indoor facility with 12-15k capacity would get a ton of use. Not complaining- just curious why this is.

I'm really excited about this. It's not a bad location necessarily, but it's not an easy site to build on. There's about 50'-75' of elevation change on that site as it goes down to the Flats, and it's bordered by the highway and railroad tracks. All of this can be overcome of course, but I find it interesting that many of the exciting future projects in Cleveland will be on difficult sites that require a lot of infrastructure changes. Lakefront, Riverfront, this site, will all require a major lift just to get development started, meanwhile there are still lots parcels downtown that are vacant or more "shovel ready". I'm not complaining; if these projects get done, then future projects will just be that much easier to build. I'm just really surprised this is the case.

That building truly has a presence, especially in person. Now that all the power lines are in, when does this power plant come on line? Haha.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that developers usually like good design and often have big egos so they usually WANT to build something cool and flashy. But ultimately developers are limited to the financing that a building project can support. I'm saying that in many ways, a lot of the big design decisions (like use, size, massing, maybe aesthetics to a lesser degree) are largely the product of complex business models that developers use to determine if a project is viable, and consequently if they are going to build it. There are at least a dozen different variables that factor into these equations, land value is one of them, but likely not a factor at all in the case of Bridgeworks. My guess with Bridgeworks is that when the interest rates were low, they could afford to be bolder with the design. But now that interest rates are higher, financing the project costs more money. So they likely determined that the only way to make it happen is to build the same number of apartments but less expensively, which in this case means a shorter, longer building. I think it's also likely that the developer is more disappointed than anyone that they aren't getting their tower.

"The skyscraper is a machine that makes the land pay."- Cass Gilbert (famous architect) I hated this quote in architecture school- I couldn't understand how an architect could describe buildings in such a bleak way. But I've learned this is the key to understanding design. Like it or not, never forget that buildings (most buildings) are investments first, pieces of art second. Developers don't build what they want or what they think a site should be. They build what will generate a return. This is determined with very precise financial models that take into account market conditions, lending environment, and a lot of other very non-architectural factors. Case in point, Cass Gilbert said this quote about skyscrapers in the early 1900s. His point was that skyscrapers evolved due to high demand, high land values, and new cheap materials (steel), not because people wanted taller buildings. PS- not trying to be argumentative- I want a taller Bridgeworks too. I have just come to appreciate this quote and wanted to share.

As much as I want CLE Cliffs to build a new skyscraper, I think it makes more sense for them to just buy 200 PS and spruce it up. I'd rather have them on PS and avoid the building becoming a zombie property.

^I believe it was a requirement of the City

My vote for next big project is either SHW 2.0 or something on the Riverfront. SHW and Bedrock have tons of cash and already have a head start on planning/design work. But I think the next year or two will probably be spent doing more planning/design and other prep work before we really see something large coming out of the ground.

They said the Curtis Block is an apartment lobby right now, but could be redesigned for future retail. All I'm saying is that the building is the same size as the Mitchells Ice Cream in Rocky River and having an ice cream shop next to the plaza would be awesome! Or maybe Casto wants to open up a Jenni's scoop shop!