Ethan

^ agreed, one of the reasons I think this is such a good location for a stadium is that it's unlikely to get activated by anything else anytime soon. A stadium probably is the best use of this land with the current infrastructure that's in place. Contrast that with the current Browns stadium location. If this stadium is able to support a bar or two, that's great, but if not, it's no big deal, because most likely nothing is getting built here without a stadium. Any auxillary development is a win, even if it's very minimal.

Maybe, but continuing your line of thinking then things like highways represent challenges to be overcome. Even if you made Ontario more walkable, the 300ft under the highway will still act as a barrier. It is difficult to activate, and people without a definite destination will use it as a natural turning around point. That can be mitigated, with art, lighting, etc, but it's hard to eliminate that dividing effect entirely.

That's probably the best rooftop view in the city. The problem with Terminal Tower's observation deck is similar to going up the Eiffel Tower, you don't see the Terminal Tower. You can get even higher in the Key Bank, but then you don't see the Key Bank Building. From this perspective you don't see Erieview, no great loss... Of course you don't want to look East... That view is depressing. If they're smart they put the bar and whatever else they need on that side, preserving views to the West, North, and South.

I don't see a significant chance that the state steps in with anything close to the $1,200,000,000 that the Haslams are asking for. They might give a hundred million or two (which is still a lot of money), but they've never given a billion to a stadium project before, and I don't think they want to start that precedent. With three roughly equally sized cities, the state need to at least maintain the illusion of parity, and giving a Cleveland stadium project 10x their normal contribution would tear at what is left of that illusion, likely resulting in intrastate bickering. Not saying it couldn't happen, but I'm not betting on it.

I assume access will be via stairs only.

Looks good, though seeing this on video really makes me hope that the buildings end up looking substantially different thanks the Adjaye massings. My understanding is that they are placeholder designs, but it isn't normal to bring in an internationally recognizer architect for placeholder designs, so it isn't obvious that they are. My hope is for these buildings to be beautiful. Let's build the kind of buildings we want to see reflected in big box buildings, not more big boxes, glassy or otherwise. There's lots of great inspiration to draw from surrounding buildings, like Terminal Tower and the Landmark Office Complex, let's draw from those beauties, and add beauty to our city!

Depends on what you mean by vacant, but in case this is a real question, it's now National Park System land, so it's permanently off the table.

I suppose, that would've been a pretty decent location for them. Similar acreage, and also near a two highway intersection like Brook Park. Very similar spot as the old Richfield Coliseum. Cartoon editorial on Cleveland.com on the subject. Not endorsing the opinion, just sharing since it's relevant. https://www.cleveland.com/darcy/2024/10/browns-dome-developments-darcy-cartoon.html

I don't think so, at least not in the near future. It's too isolated from the rest of downtown by highways. In theory you could redesign the I-90 exit ramps and make Orange/Ontario tolerable for pedestrians. If that happened I'm sure there would be at least some interest in living in the area due to its proximity to downtown. Some neighborhood seeding apartments could come in and you could get a neighborhood going similar to what we're seeing on Scranton. I guess the other way to activate this area would be an expansion of Flats South Bank. Given that FSB doesn't even exist yet, this I would obviously be a long way off.

It's a fair point, and like I said, it could be done well, but I don't think it would, and until I see plans, I'm maintaining in opposition. Also, parking takes up a lot of space, very quickly. If we just look at the current stadium and the (previously) parking North of it, that's 475 meters. That's most of the width of Burke where you measured it, and basically any point West of the highway interchange. The problem is that anyway you slice it, if the Haslams want substantial parking around the stadium (which there's reason to suspect), it's difficult to do that without slicing the park in half, or completely disconnecting it from downtown. Pictured above is only about 18 acres of parking. I'm sure the Haslams want more than that. I analyzed this a bit further in the below quoted post where I looked at the size of 40 acres of parking. That's still less than they want, but maybe the bare minimum they'll accept in addition to mini lot not getting developed and downtown parking availability. Maybe they could do a muni lot style thing parking lot down the length of Burke, but I'm guessing that's not what the Browns want. Basically parking takes up space fast. -- Absolutely, if the Haslams are willing and interested in an urban form stadium. The problem is that they aren't as far as I can tell.

I agree with all this, except that I'm not sure Burke is actually a better location than Brook Park. Sure it's on the edge of downtown, but I continue to think that a 10-15 day/year usage stadium is not the best use of downtown (adjacent) lakefront land. And crucially, neither is parking. Prior discussions on this forum have led me to conclude that we likely wouldn't build a stadium at Burke without adding significant parking infrastructure. If that's the case, then I'm currently opposed. I could be convinced though, depending on the plans. But I don't think there's a good use of this land, from the City's perspective, that also gives the Haslams' what they want. The only way I can see this not coming with boatloads of parking is if it is built in the Southwest corner. It's the only place close enough to utilize the downtown parking infrastructure. Problem is, it's also really the only portion of Burke well suited for development. If the Browns could be happy building their stadium village there I could see it maybe working, but from everything I've read here they want the parking. That's all revenue for them. They want the surface lots, and as long as that's the case their goals are fundamentally misaligned with those of the City, and the City should only move so far to accommodate them, as they have been doing so far. Basically, if the Haslams are interested in an urban format stadium nestled in a mixed use development zone than the City should engage them on Burke development. If they want a sea of lakefront parking the City shouldn't bend over backwards to accommodate them.

There's also the problem of just throwing money to lawyers. Regardless of the outcome, the region does not benefit from a potentially expensive legal battle. If the stadium still ends up in Brook Park, then the City will have wasted money, and the Haslams will have less money to make things nice. Even if they succeed, it effectively adds a good bit of money to the renovation. Hopefully any legal battles wrap up quickly and relatively cheaply, regardless of outcome. A long protracted legal name benefits no one.

Two tidbits from Bibb's press conference to be excited about with regards to the lakefront "We've got federal support, with more on the way" "We've already started to design" the lakefront without the Browns. Neither is surprising, and I'm pretty sure at least the second was known, but still good to hear confirmed.

Can we expect to hear about money (i.e. public contributions) in this announcement?

I'm also pretty skeptical that there would be much demand for a bike path here. As Surf mentioned, the exposure to the elements is such that this probably wouldn't be a very pleasant place to be the majority of the year. I'm also not sure how much of a relative benefit this is for biking relative to going over (or under) Detroit Superior. I love the idea of a continuous Lakefront bikeway, but the bikeway basically restarts at the other end of the Detroit Superior Bridge anyway. (In my ideal world the rail bridge at the mouth of the river is reconfigured to allow bikes to pass over as well, from there they can get to Wendy Park, and continue over to Edgewater.) And pedestrians definitely won't go up there regularly, no matter how good the view is. Pedestrians are pretty reluctant to walk across Detroit Superior. It feels longer than it is due to how visually boring of a walk it is, and bridge slopes are also surprisingly steep for both bikes and walkers. The same will be true, just more so, for a bike path path along the shoreway. Not a bad idea, just one I would expect to fall flat. Whether or not it's ultimately necessary, I think it's most useful function will always be its current one. The best way to make that view accessible is to start building some tall buildings on the west bank of the Flats...

I visited the Yucatan a year or so before this opened. I flew into Cancun and stayed in Merida (good decision btw, would recommend). I took a bus to get between the two. This train would have been fantastic! Given how slow and expensive large infrastructure is to build in much of the world I find the shortcuts they took to get this built quickly and efficiently sort of refreshing. Environmental review is important, it would be better if this went through city centers, they could have fully electrified the whole line, etc. But this line is already open and carrying passengers, in contrast, CAHSR still has segments that haven't received environmental approval yet...

My reading of the diagrams is that this first phase will add three lights. One at the new intersection created with the shoreway boulevard and Lakeside, and then two with W3rd, one at each end. A later phase will add an intersection at E9, and possibly another near Burke/Muni lot to facilitate development.

Their phrasing was confusing, but I think you have this backwards. Revising the 2022 numbers up would make the decrease from 2022 to 2023 larger not smaller. "Without the increase, the drop in violent crime in 2023 would have been less than half as large – only 1.6% instead of the reported drop of 3.5%." Per the FBIs comment it looks like they revised 2022's numbers when they released 2023 making the decrease look larger than the numbers they had previously released would indicate. "The 2022 violent crime rate has been updated for inclusion in CIUS, 2023" that's the only interpretation that makes sense to me.

Garfield park pond renovation announced complete. https://www.cleveland.com/realestate-news/2024/10/massive-cleveland-metroparks-garfield-park-pond-restoration-complete-just-in-time-to-enjoy-the-fall-leaves-photo-gallery.html

Isn't the above discussion sort of the catch 22 of urban area parks? You can't justify a devoting a large-ish area to parkland until you've reached a certain level of density/development, but once you reach that level of development/demand you'll never be able to coble together that much land. Parkland is either attainable but not necessary (yet), or necessary but unobtainable. Obviously we are all hoping for more density and development in and near downtown. I'd like us to have a downtown resident density to rival vancouver, and I'd like us to preserve and develop parkland to support that density, not what we have know. That's because it won't still be possible to construct these large parks once we are that dense, the land won't still be available. Building and maintaining high quality parks is not an impediment to density, people like living near parks (see the transformation near Edgewater). There are plenty of parking lots to build on, let's develop those, and have beautiful, large, waterfront parks near the downtown core.

It looks like the planners already know what they'd like to do if they can get a hold of that Northeast parking lot, and in a likely oversight, they included it on the last page. I'd love for them to snag up that parking lot, and I'm glad they already have a plan. I think adding this last corner will make the park feel more connected and cohesive, not that it's not already a huge upgrade, but less space for parking would be better. Particularly since that is the path people will likely take if heading towards Scranton, tree lined instead of through a parking lot would be better.

Schematic Design for Canal Basin Park uploaded. https://www.canalwaypartners.com/advocacy/canal-basin-park Download link https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:VA6C2:8e35e155-1a81-4465-bcc5-4f16b9aedc56

Cool any additional insights? For which transport modes? I know it's unrealistic, but I still think one of the best way to do this would be to repurpose the abandoned rail bridges. It would be a cool way to add pedestrian and bike connections. The problem is that Carter Rd has been rendered obsolete, and Eagle Ave is too far gone. The third one would be a helpful connection between the two peninsulas though. If we want to get really ambitious getting rail back on the Carter Rd bridge would be a game changer. Basically turning South instead of North for the lakefront line. I'm thinking the turn is a little too sharp, but boy would that be cool if it can be made to work. It could continue on to Tremont and beyond. BrewDog is looking genius right now, and not including any retail in either of the large apartment developments is starting to look like a mistake. I'm sure the next development will have ground floor retail. I wonder if both of the two in construction developments knew for sure the other would cross the finish line if they would have been more likely to include retail, even just a small amount. Both by themselves probably can't sustain retail, but together, maybe. Idk, I'm just thinking.

Original press release. https://www.portofcleveland.com/port-approves-15-million-in-taxable-lease-revenue-bonds-for-cleveland-heights-historic-redevelopment/

Does this mean the Browns are willing to move to Brook Park even if they can't get $1,200,000,000 from taxpayers? If so I consider this a massive win. Stadium off the lakefront, new likely domed stadium, minimal public expense, possible mixed use TOD located next to airport and redline. I know a lot of people want to keep the stadium downtown, but there's a lot of upside to this deal, and if the County holds firm on not funding this, then I'm thrilled! There are so many better use for downtown adjacent lakefront land, as long as this doesn't stall the current lakefront plan, I think the upsides outweigh the downsides.