Dino

I'm not sure that building more parking actually alleviates parking issues. More parking encourages more people to drive. It's counterintuitive I suppose, but this has been proved by traffic experts who show that adding more lanes of traffic actually create more congestion, not less. I'm not saying that parking garages don't have their place in the city, but I think that we need to alternatives. We need to diversify our transportation options. I thought this was a good article https://www.vox.com/23712664/parking-lots-urban-planning-cities-housing

There's room for a garage at almost every current rapid station (at least on the red line), and a new rapid station at 41st Street and N Marginal would only be a few blocks south of Lorain. There would be room for a garage there. Or better yet, if you're willing to demo about two dozen houses, a TOD on Bailey stretching from 44th to 41st, could include a new rapid station, garage, and apartments.

The shape reminds me of a freighter, and I think it's really cool.

Agreed! Avant-garde design requires risking someone not liking it. Sometimes developers are willing to take that risk, but often times not. However, even if a developer wanted to be bold, most projects in Cleveland are still subject to block club and Design Review approval for one reason or another. This usually leads to a very watered down design.

Well, according to @KJP the stadium is going on an island in Lake Erie! Haha. Put it in international waters...no laws...then we'll get a Super bowl for sure!

I think these sites are all very similar to the Brook Park site. Surrounded by surface parking and low rise development. Aside from Allegiant, none of these stadiums are surrounded by tons of hotels and restaurants, maybe a few, but they are legitimately in the suburbs. Some are very close to a major airport and/or highway. However, I agree with everything else you are saying. But the location of a new stadium in Cleveland isn't changing any of that. Neither is a dome. Residents, tourists, corporations don't keep picking Atlanta over Cleveland (I'm saying this to be funny!) because Cleveland lacks a domed stadium downtown. A few Waffle Houses in Cleveland wouldn't hurt though.

Agreed. Only 4 northern cities have ever hosted a Super Bowl for a combined 6 Super Bowls out of 58

The NFL has a pretty even distribution of where the stadiums are located. Some are downtown, some are in the suburbs, and some are in the city, but not downtown. Of the last 10 NFL stadiums built, 3 are downtown (ATL, MN., IND.) and 6 are in the suburbs (LV, LA, SF, NY, AZ, TX). Only 1 is in the city, but not downtown (PHI). 4 of the 10 are very close to the airport (LV, LA, SF, PHIL). The last 2 stadiums built we Allegiant and SoFi. Both are suburban and both are very, very close to the airport. The two before that, Atlanta and Minn. are downtown. So I don't see any clear trends at all, but it was still a fun way to kill 30 minutes!

Suburban Super Bowl Locations since 2013... 2013, Glendale, AZ, 2014, East Rutherford, NJ, 2015, Glendale AZ, 2016, Santa Clara, CA, 2020, Miami Gardens FL, 2021, Tampa, FL (it's technically Tampa, but it's the suburbs) 2022, Inglewood, CA, 2023, Glendale, AZ, 2024 Paradise, NV, 2026, Santa Clara, CA, 2027, Inglewood, CA

Owners always tout the economic benefits. Politicians do too when it suits their needs. However, most academics and economists agree that there is little economic benefit from sports stadiums, and certainly not enough to justify the huge public subsidies. The majority of money spent attending games and other entertainment is "diverted" economic activity, meaning that money would have been spent on some other form of entertainment if the sports team was not there. The only net add to the economy is the draw of out of town visitors. That's legit, but is typically over estimated and doesn't come anywhere near to offsetting the public subsidy. Oh...and stadiums probably generate an extra $10M a year in beer sales because they are the only ones that can get people to pay $13 for a Bud Light. I'm not arguing for or against here, I'm just saying I've looked and I've looked and all the research shows that there is no economic argument to be made here.

That number made me want to put the public subsidy to the Browns into perspective... The Browns want $500M from the City to keep the stadium downtown, and it appears that the City is at least open to that idea. For that money, we'd get about 610,000 people to visit downtown. That equals about $820 of City money for every person it brings downtown. Not too shabby... Meanwhile the City provided $100M in incentives to SHW to keep and relocate a total of 3500 employees to the new downtown HQ. With 260 working days in a year, that equals 910,000 people SHW brings downtown every year. That's only $110 of City money for every person it brings downtown. Even better! Meanwhile the City provided the Lumen $10M in incentives. At 318 apartments, let's say that's 500 total people, but for 365 days a year. That's 182,500 people a year it brings downtown for a total of $55 of City money for every person it brings downtown. Now we're talking!!! I know its not as simple as this, but, on paper, for $500M, the City can get 1 stadium and 610,000 annual football fans for an afternoon or even a day downtown, or 5 skyscrapers with 17,500 office workers for 4.5M visits annually, or 50 high-rise apartment buildings with 25,000 residents for 9.1M visits annually to our downtown.

If the stadium leaves downtown, that would be a little sad, but I'm not sure it will be a death blow to downtown. It could be a GREAT opportunity. Hear me out...Our downtown convention center is landlocked and I believe I read that it needs to be bigger to attract some of the more impressive events. It also poses some obstacles to the land bridge concept. Meanwhile, the IX Center draws 750k visitors (according to its website) which is probably about what the Browns Stadium currently generates in terms of annual visitors. The IX center is also over 80 years old and was originally built as a factory-so not the greatest facility in the world. Furthermore, our current airport terminal is about 60 years old and kind of sucks. But we really don't have anywhere to build a new one. Soooo..... The Haslam's could build a new Browns Stadium in Brook Park and Cleveland wouldn't have to put any money towards it. Once the stadium is off the lakefront, a new convention center addition could be built in its place connected by a land bridge. Chicago's McCormick Place has almost this identical situation (Cleveland's wouldn't be quite as big though). The new convention center could still be supported by new lakefront hotels, restaurants, and other development. In fact, a convention center project be more of a jumpstart to new development than a stadium. Once the convention center is done, they could knock down the IX Center and build a new airport terminal. The City would win by keeping almost 1M people coming downtown annually. Plus $500M of City money that would otherwise go to a stadium could be put to use to help fund a larger convention center, land bridge, new lakefront development, and new airport terminal. $500M would be enough for all of that of course, but it makes a really great start! The Haslam's would win because they'd get the new domed stadium they always wanted and the real estate control for land surrounding the stadium.

Afterthought? The plan was and always has been to add a second tower to this site to accommodate growth and potentially vendors. They even presented massings to the Planning Commission years ago. The base for the 2nd tower could easily accommodate more parking. I would say that showed unusual forethought. They left about 75' at the street to surround the parking garage with. That is the perfect dimension for residential or hotel over retail.

^So is the PLH Building just to the west of Civilization

So I went to Google Maps just now and the Brookpark site is already labeled "Future Cleveland Browns Stadium". That's hilarious.

This is only sort of related to the Browns Stadium, but the KC Royals just announced they are building a new downtown ballpark. It's relevant because the project is next to a highway and includes a cap over the highway, i.e. a land bridge! https://fox4kc.com/sports/royals/kansas-city-royals-pick-crossroads-site-for-new-stadium-release-renderings/ https://fox4kc.com/business/south-loop-link-park-could-boost-kansas-city-economy-study/

Several people have stated that the Brookpark land allows Haslam to control the entire site and development, which makes a lot of sense- I could see that. Others have said, that they heard the Brookpark land was not for a football use. I wonder if the Brookpark land is intended as a landing spot for a USPS distribution center, thus freeing up their land on Orange Ave.? Or perhaps as part of some other land swap deal in order to free up space closer to downtown? Maybe building in Brookpark is only their last resort if all else fails?

I know I'm dreaming here, but I think it would be so cool if GLBC could repurpose the Canal Road Power Plant

Breweries in America have historically been in in neighborhoods surrounded by housing. They've historically been some pretty gorgeous buildings too! See this link...https://www.clevescene.com/cleveland/photos-a-history-of-15-cleveland-breweries-that-are-no-more/Slideshow/3683403/3684577 A brewery with a brew pub would be the definition of mixed-use, wouldn't it? Mixed use doesn't have to mean residential over retail. At the very least it would add to the mixture of uses in the neighborhood, right? Sam Adams, Rheingeist, and Boulevard Brewing all have urban breweries in their respective cities that are surrounded by residential. I think this would be a perfect use for the Scranton Peninsula.

I respect what you are saying here, and I too want a vibrant downtown. Personally, I am drawn to the word urban. That, to me, means, density, mixed uses, walkability, transit focused, etc. The prototypical American City has all of those things to the fullest extent at the center of the region and they all diminish the further you get from the center. However, that model has been shifting for a number of decades, probably starting in the 1950's. American cities are increasingly de-centralized and more nodal, so you'll see smaller pockets of density more evenly spread out through a region, while the centralized core becomes less THE urban area of a region to becoming one of several. Back to the Browns...I also agree that the prototypical NFL stadium is very anti-urban, but that too is changing. Stadiums in general are becoming more integrated with surrounding amenities like hotels and entertainment options, maybe even residential. NBA and MLB are ahead of the NFL in this regard. As a result, many new stadiums are being built closer to downtowns, but on the other hand, other cities are bringing the amenities to the stadiums. Regardless of the location, it seems like the entire goal for the Browns is to end up with a stadium surrounded by a dense mix of uses.

Well, who know what this means...but by my count there are about 13 NFL stadiums located in their City's Downtown- like the Cleveland Browns. 7 teams located in their namesake city, but not downtown- Like the Kansas City Chiefs. And there are 12 teams that do not technically play in their namesake city- Like the Dallas Cowboys. Someone could surely debate some of these, but the point is, whatever happens, it will not be unusual. Plus, there have been a few comments about "losing the Browns" and it's been said in a few different contexts, but moving to Brookpark, is not the same as relocating to Baltimore. No one else in the country would ever question that the site is not "in Cleveland".

I had a couple of comments on the SHW parking discussion... 1. I agree their parking strategy was a little short sided. No need to debate that, but hey, hindsight is 20/20 right? 2. SHW currently owns 0 parking spaces (since they sold Breen anyway) and are relocating from a few blocks away. They aren't adding 3500 employees to downtown. They are moving many employees to Brecksville, but moving others to downtown. Whatever the net add to downtown is, they'll still have way more parking than they currently do. 3. SHW hasn't provided parking for employees for 100 years. I doubt the plan was ever to have 1 space/employee 4. Being a self contained island is what they'd do in the suburbs. There are pros and cons to that mentality. In a downtown setting, I think everyone understands that not everyone will park onsite. At least, I think the talent SHW hopes to attract with a downtown HQ will understand that. 5. SHW is not without options. They could still build a large garage under HQ2, maybe that adds another 1000 spots. They could lease spots at Tower City which they presumably do currently, they could partner with a nearby surface lot to lease the land/parking spots or build a second garage off-site. These arrangements are common. 6. $1000/month stipend for housing is WAY more expensive than building a garage. A good budget for a parking garage is $35k/space. That means after 3 years of a $1000/month stipend, they'd be better off building a garage. The garage would be a much cheaper alternative and it's an investment they would own. 7. For a lot less, they could offer free RTA tickets, or reimburse employees who park at other garages.

Sure it could. Woodling Gym on campus holds 3,000, Per the inter-web, that's big enough for CSU basketball crowds these days, and they can find alternate venues for other events, like the Charge, etc. Agree to disagree. It's centrally located, great highway access, decent public transit access, several parking garages nearby, pretty close to existing entertainment options, but surrounded by plenty of underutilized land around for future development. I think Krenzler Field would be pretty good too for all the same reasons.

I'm getting some cool Oregon Trail vibes...this would be perfect for Pioneer at Intro!

I would love high rise apartments here, but if we are going to get a big box, how about an actual IKEA? They've already done an IKEA logistics center. The IKEA in Brooklyn NY is on a similar site and has free ferry service to/from Manhattan.