Ethan

The 5 acre Guardians employee lot could functionally be considered a part of this total. Even if it remains surface parking, it should still be able to serve the majority of Browns home games. Did a quick look at the Heinz field, the area surrounding Heinz field looks to be about 53 acres. Paycor Stadium looks to be about 46 acres. Currently the area supporting Browns Stadium is about 45 acres, so if you add in the Guardians lot, which seems very reasonable for most Brown's games, you have a very reasonable and normal amount of space for supporting a football stadium. -- Also, I'm amused by the concept of bundling the Browns and Ikea together in Brook Park. While probably unlikely, it's low-key a good Idea.

While interesting, any theoretical stadium proposals that require downgrading portions of the interstate highway system simply aren't going to happen. Even if the City and County were fully behind it, it's not realistic. I still personally like the site proposed to Art Modell (the 10+5.5 acre on both sides of the track in the picture above). That seems to have fallen out of favor for reasons unbeknownst to me. The post office site seems to be the next best after that. If the Haslams want a new build near downtown there are a few other options beyond that, it just seems like the Haslams don't want that.

Public Square Visioning Workshop This workshop is the first step in our engagement with Project for Public Spaces, a world-renowned public space expert dedicated to helping people create and sustain places that build stronger communities. The workshop will focus on identifying easy-to-implement improvements that will make it a vibrant place for residents, office workers, and visitors to enjoy. Come share your ideas and contribute to the vision for an active and safe Public Square. We respect your time and promise a fast-paced, engaging, participatory workshop. Bring your walking shoes as we will be doing some brainstorming on-site! Food will be provided. Please join us at one of the following workshops, held at 75 Public Square: Wednesday, April 17 - 5:30-7:30pm (dinner provided) Thursday, April 18 - 12-2pm (lunch provided) Please RSVP here on Eventbrite by Tuesday, April 16th. We look forward to getting your feedback and hearing your ideas! https://www.eventbrite.com/e/public-square-visioning-workshop-tickets-876130849957?aff=oddtdtcreator

This has been brought up a few times before, but if the stadium does move it would probably send lakefront planning back a few steps, if not back to the beginning. As annoying as it is, it probably should. The best case scenario would be to consider the real estate from the stadium as a (potential) phase 2 in the current planning. If it never moves, great! But if it does at least we'll be prepared. There's been some discussion of this in the lakefront thread.

Good thought, but the part that conflicts with your idea is Bibb/the city going back to the public to redesign the lakefront vision, instead of taking the Haslams one. This matters, because the City's proposal is significantly more park focused and less development focused. As a result, even if the Haslams owned it, it wouldn't generate nearly as much revenue for them. They could also be orchestrating this drama with the goal of moving the Browns to Brook Park. Realistically the City can't let that happen without a fight.

If this is a joke Crains is in on it. https://www.crainscleveland.com/sports-recreation/cleveland-councilman-brian-kazy-wants-browns-stay-city

Great article! I think his comment about how the worst thing for the City may be for the Haslams to be indecisive. The city can make lemonade out of whatever the team decides, but only if they are able to plan accordingly.

Actually I think this development would have a lot of synergy with a hotel. Especially if a direct pedestrian connection to the airport is created (which seems like an obvious move). In that case the hotel could get reasonably steady traffic from the airport, and a few guaranteed sellouts from stadium events. Actually, a direct pedestrian connection to the terminal could potentially support some mixed use development just from long layovers or airport delays. Something like a 4 or 5 hour layover may not be worth going into downtown, but that's long enough to justify walking to some shops shortly outside of the airport. You have to go back through security, but it usually isn't that bad at Hopkins anyway (or just get pre-check). Again same logic applies, steady traffic from airline passengers, plus some heavily packed days near events. This isn't even considering possible synergy with the I-X center.

Yeah, to be fair, as has been discussed before ~70% of Browns attendees are coming from outside Cuyahoga County so driving/parking is a realistic necessity. Per the earlier fantastic analysis by NorthShore, there are really only a few practical locations in all of Cuyahoga County, and downtown is the only place with the parking infrastructure to support a stadium without huge amounts of new surface parking. From a purely business perspective, I can absolutely understand why the Haslams want to capture all that parking revenue for themselves. They are basically increasing the cost of tickets by ~$10-$30 dollars depending on how many people per car, and how much they want they are willing to risk fan goodwill with high parking prices. Regardless, whatever extra amount they charge, it's all pure profit.

It'd be about half the size of Edgewater, so nothing to scoff at. Another potential option is to add another museum of some sort to this space. We already have the Rock Hall, Science Center, the Mather, the COD, and even the Women's Air and Space museum if you keep going east. It could have a vibe similar to Chicago's museum campus (though probably with a few more active uses). Possibly a planetarium or a better aquarium. If the stadium does go, it potentially throws the current lakefront plan up in the air, and I'm conflicted by it. On one hand I don't want it to slow things down, but on the other hand a plan that optimally uses 50 acres should be better than one that optimally uses ~30 acres and then factors in the rest at a later date. Hopefully this is being considered behind the scenes and a phase two already exists.

Possibly proof of AI usage. Though I'm not sure why AI would hallucinate buildings in the background, but I've heard of it doing similar things.

Okay, it seems like my intuitions and assumptions about what this building will be may be unfounded, and that's good! If I'm being honest, I still can't quite shake them, but I'll be happy to be proven wrong!

Exactly this!! If the Haslam's want to move to Brook Park, and they're willing to do so on their own dime, then great! At that point I'm ambivalent (at worst) to the decision. But if they are moving the stadium out of downtown they shouldn't the same level of taxpayer support. My position is that elected officials should be proactive on this (and it sounds like they might be doing this behind the scenes). I would tell the city/county to cap their support to a set number regardless of if the browns decide to build new or refurb. For the city specifically, I would have them make very clear that they aren't supporting any project outside of city limits (extremely reasonable). Whatever the Haslams want to do beyond that support they can make up from their pockets, the state, or the surrounding counties. Honestly, if the Browns decide to move to Brook Park entirely on their own dime (zero public support). I might actually prefer that. Even the public contribution to the current stadium refurb is a lot of money. If they didn't need to spend that I'm sure that money could be spent elsewhere (and if not we can always lower taxes to be more competitive with surrounding counties). The degree of public support isn't incidental in this discussion, it's a major factor, probably on par with the location.

Yeah, they've been saying it will be open to the public since the beginning. I guess I should probably qualify my statement as meaningfully open to the public. I'm skeptical. Between the clinic, and professional athletes, it seems like there's a lot of interest and institutional inertia towards keeping access restricted, even if it is nominally open to the public. I could be wrong, but my suspicion is that it isn't going to the type of building you can just drop in to for an exercise class or something. Hopefully I'm wrong, and worst case scenario at least it's pretty. But it could easily be much better. They're already building over the road, why not move the parking to the other side? Who knows maybe they have, and we just don't have that updated information. I'm hoping for that.

It looks fine, good even, and as part of a mixed use neighborhood, I see no problem with it. My concern is just that I'm not sure how well it bodes for developing the rest of the riverfront I'd the first thing in is basically closed to the public. The initial mentioned nothing specific about public interaction, and I see nothing about it all in this press release. No real floor plan level anything shown here, but I'd like to see the parking entirely on the other side of Eagle, and put something public and/or mixed use on the bottom level, restaurant, retail, etc.. Not going to happen, but that would be great. Such a cool location on the river, I'd love it to be more accessible to the public. I guess you got to start somewhere, I'm just being pessimistic. Edit: Here is the earlier proposed floor plan. I like the pretty renderings, but I still don't like the floor plan at all, and that's arguably more important. Hopefully they have at least made a few small tweaks, and increased the public use on the first floor.

I'm curious why this location isn't getting more attention. As the letter points out, it's been proposed before, and still makes a lot of sense. It's a similar location to @KJP's Broadway proposal, just located closer to the downtown core and the other major stadium's. I know a soccer Stadium has also been proposed here, but I don't think those plans are finalized, and I soccer still doesn't have anywhere near the cultural leverage of football (in the USA) and I can't see it going to soccer if there's competition, even if soccer had first bid. I guess there's some added difficulty in building over tracks, but given how expensive a new stadium will be regardless, I can't see it as being ultimately that big of a deal. Is that the only issue? The city view this location as already having been rejected? Are there other things I'm not thinking about?

I'll take anything at this point, but this fix shows a complete lack of understanding of the original design. People were supposed to flow along the 'butterfly' wings. The crosswalks should continue along those paths, but instead it looks like they are trying to place the bollards close enough together to prevent or at least discourage people from walking where the original plan intended. They should have raised the whole middle area up to curb height and made it one large crosswalk area, bollards should have the crosswalk spacing throughout that distance. They are meant to stop vehicles not pedestrians, they don't need to be so close together.

If this is now an active project, should we move the public square thread out of completed projects? I ask because I'm sure that if we don't we will constantly have the discussion split between two threads.

Edit: same article accessible online, https://www.cleveland.com/community/2024/03/cleveland-heights-moves-ahead-on-cornerstone-taylor-tudors-project-in-cain-park-village-plan.html

Great article as always! I'm curious who created the riverfront boardwalk graphic. It has the look of a Metroparks graphic, but the most logical conclusion is that the George's made it themselves. Either they did it all on their own, in conjunction with the Metroparks, or the Metroparks made it. The graphic becomes substantially more or less interesting depending on which of the three is the case.

Looking at their previous massings for HQ2 it looks to be about 18 stories tall and a bit taller than the Rockefeller building. If I were to bet, I'd probably bet on something about the size of the initial "tentative" massing.

While perhaps a bit melodramatic, the article does bring up some good points. I voted for legalization, and my mind hasn't been changed, but I agree that in some ways the zeitgeist has shifted too far. A lot of people are starting to view Marijuana as healthy, when at best it runs in the same pack as cigarettes and alcohol. Drugs that have some positive upsides, but are still on net negative, both for the individual and society. (For the record, I love me some bourbon and dark beer, and I occasionally smoke weed). In part due to it being illegal, the long term negative side effects from marijuana aren't well studied, as the article mentions, it has been linked to heart disease and stroke. It hasn't yet been linked to cancer, but smoking marijuana has been shown to cause tar deposits equal or greater than cigarettes. I'm guessing cancer links will be established eventually, though of course I can't know that for sure. (Inhaling smoke, even from wood burning fires, isn't good for your lungs). The effects on developing brains are pretty well documented, and also mentioned in the article. There are also some weird links between marijuana and schizophrenia, again more research is needed. Again, I'm pro legalization, but we shouldn't move so far as to assume that just because it should be legal it is thus perfectly safe or even healthy.

I like their plans for the cultural elements; I'm mostly just hoping they don't change anything about the rest of their plan from their initial proposal to the planning commission. The commission made a lot of stupid comments, so hopefully those have all been ignored.

I know there have been previous posters who didn't think that a park/green space would be the best use of this land, that's why I assumed it would be controversial. I don't think anyone will disagree that this will be an improvement over the current situation though. Edit: @Luke_STo answer your other question, probably not immediately as that bridge still serves Cargill Deicing Technology.