Dino

I'm sure I'm oversimplifying, but it is my understanding that the current stadium was built very poorly in a location that was readily available. I.e. how quickly and cheaply can we build a stadium on land we already have in order to get a team as quickly as possible. The result seems to have been very little if any spin off development and a stadium that no one really seems to love, and one that needs to be replaced after only 30 years. Very sad. My ONLY hope for the stadium now is that it's something the City can and will build around. Something that's going to last for awhile, and create spin off development. So in 30 years the City can continue adding to a growing district instead of starting from square one again. After that, i don't really care if it's new or renovated, domed or open air, or if it's on the lake or somewhere else (although I would be a little sad if it wasn't in or near downtown).

I hope with their need to expand, they might consider something more substantial on the PS lot. I think a welcome center with a 8-10 story hotel would be great on Public Square. Didn't they say having a hotel would be desirable? and at 8-10 stories, it would match the heights of the other buildings on Public Square without obstructing views, of the HQ and also out of it. That plus a 400' tower on the west side of HQ1 and I think we have a pretty great complex!

I don't know if it is or will be a factor for the Browns new stadium, but I find it hard to believe that the NFL isn't demanding (either directly or indirectly) teams to replace old stadiums with domed stadiums. Cold weather games typically result in lower attendance, lower scoring games, the possibility of relocating or delaying games, and (of lesser concern to the NFL) higher injury to players. None of these are insurmountable of course, but I would imagine if the NFL can pressure cities, and counties to spend extra for a domed stadium in order to protect their bottom line, they would be. I mean, why not? It's not costing the NFL anything.

I like the overall shape of the building and I like the recesses in the facade. I would have used a slightly different type of glass or pattern in the recesses so that it accentuated it more. With all the glass being the same, you lose a lot of the effect of having the recesses. Not a criticism, just a minor observation. Overall it's really cool.

Great Lakes announces move to Avon?

They did it! They pulled it off! They've created the world's most convoluted and forced acronym! CHEERS (Cleveland Harbor Eastern Embayment Resilience Strategy). Bravo, Cleveland Metroparks. Well done.

I don't know anything about these business deals, but aren't there lengthy government approvals that still need to happen before the deal can go through? Is there still a chance this deal doesn't happen?

I went to the game today and I was reminded of how hard it is to get to the stadium. And it has nothing to do with it being on the lake and we definitely don’t need (it would awesome, but it’s not a necessity) a land bridge. The stadium is right on a major highway, yet all the exits are closed. The stadium is right on a public transit stop, but RTAs website says it wasn’t running today. Stadium is surrounded by vacant land, but you can’t park there. Yes you can go early. Yes you can get dropped off and walk a half mile. But it really doesn’t have to be this hard.

Might be too small for the Browns, but I like it for a soccer stadium!

^ As much as I want a new skyscraper, I also don't want vacant skyscrapers. I wonder if they would simply buy 200 Public Square? I also think that the soon-to-be Former Justice Center would be a good fit for them.

^and by “think” I mean “hope”!!!

I would think the approvals process would be a little faster the second time around. Assuming they propose something similar to what was shown in the general massing sand the design and materials are similar to Phase 1. I would think Phase 2 wouldn’t get as much scrutiny.

Chicago has the Bean...Cleveland now has the Saddle!

^This rendering is cool. And I like how the design feels like part of the first tower. Whatever they do I hope the 2nd building doesn't end up like most sequels- an unimaginative after thought. I hope it's more than a glass box.

I pulled a current photo off of the internet and turned it black and white. Honestly, I think it looks exactly the same today as it does in the 1970s photo.

The gap to the left of BP is from all the Group Plan Buildings. Former BoE, Public Auditorium, and City Hall, so not very likely. The gap to the right, between BP and Beacon is where the Library and Federal Reserve are, so again unlikely. However, the best chance is either the Westin site, or the 6 story garage south of the Westin at 6th and St. Clair. The eastern most part of the Riverfront might do it too if it's tall enough.

Here's a random observation for the random development thread. Most of the major downtown projects being discussed right now involve way more than just the project itself. They propose, or require major investments and upgrades to infrastructure or other urban planning measures to connect the project to the rest of downtown or to otherwise create a cohesive urban experience. Bridging highways, train tracks, steep topography, infill development to "connect" to the rest of the City, new transit stops, etc. Examples include, the Bedrock Riverfront, the Cavs practice facility, the Lakefront Plan, Stadium south of the innerbelt, and several of the Courthouse proposals , including the one that suggests expanding the convention center, and the TurnDev plan to build on the Pit. On paper, one would think these are some of Downtown's least desirable and/or maybe challenging sites. On the one hand, I love that the development community is so optimistic on Cleveland and using projects to leverage major urban planning improvements that, if completed, would really make an enormous impact on Cleveland. On the other hand, I can't help but wonder why developers aren't taking advantage of the low-hanging fruit. There are so many flat, vacant lots in the heart of Downtown. Examples include W. 9th & St. Clair, W. 3rd & St. Clair, Nucleus site, and anything east of E 13th, not to mention many more smaller sites. These are "shovel ready", in the heart of Downtown, accessible by transit, surrounded by other development/activity, and require no special public improvements (other than streetscape). I wonder why that is and what it says about Cleveland development. I'm sure the reasons, and opinions are complicated and varied, but it's something I wonder about.

Courthouses are essentially office buildings so I'm not sure I agree that Centennial and Landmark (existing office buildings) are better suited for a conversion to a new use. In the end, I think a reuse of either of these buildings for any use will likely require a gut renovation. So I would say that's a non-issue. Market forces and economies can change yes. But the market forces don't currently support (and haven't for some time) a 1 million sf residential conversion of a historic office building. If they did, Centennial would be done, and Bedrock would likely not have bothered putting in a proposal on the Landmark. While I agree that they would make great apartment buildings, it will likely take years to fill those apartments, and who can guarantee the number of tenants and the rents they'll pay? Meanwhile, if a developer has a tenant (the County in this case) ready and willing to occupy the entire project on Day 1, who wouldn't jump at that chance?

I'm curious how much of the decision will be based on design vs. the economic proposal. Anyone know if there was a scoring matrix published?

The Nautica site is within a 1/2 mile, or under a 10 minute walk, from 6 bus lines at 25th and Detroit, plus the train stop at Settler's Landing. That's like walking from Tower City to Progressive Field. I would consider that pretty good access.

That’s what the the internet said when I googled it but after I posted that I read more and it says it seats 5,000. 19,000 must be standing room. But yeah. It’s still doable but that connection to downtown would be a game changer

I agree. The site isn't bad on it's own, but it makes a lot more sense when paired with other uses too.

I don't see how. Nautica has a 19,000 seat capacity; about the same as a new stadium. You could come from W. 25th, W. 28th, Division Ave, Center Street, there's buses at Detroit and even the Rapid at 25th or Tower City is under a mile. Plus the whole point of urban stadiums is so that people come early/stay late to eat or have a beer. That means people aren't all arriving and leaving at the same time. If you add the pedestrian bridge, half the people could park downtown or even walk from Tower City creating many more access points. I suppose if there were a game PLUS a concert at Nautica, it could get hairy, but those are the types of problems I wish our City had.

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!

Just for fun I placed Louisville's stadium at Nautica.