coneflower

Jim Donovan believes the Cleveland Browns want a new domed stadium, likely in Brook Park https://www.wkyc.com/article/sports/local-sports/jimmys-take/jimmys-take-jim-donovan-cleveland-browns-want-new-domed-stadium-brook-park/95-3634a883-9dd2-4b81-a0b5-8c740697f338 The thing that is frustrating about this debate is it’s missing the most important variable. What is the funding? Taxpayers paying $2B to move the stadium is a lot different than the Haslams paying most of that on their own. The argument Jim Donovan describes here is the Browns move and the city does what it wants with the lakefront. Which is a great thought that many people have desired over the years but if there is no money leftover to do anything, it just sits there? I would like to hear from Justin Bibb and Chris Ronayne. At some point they need to provide more that just one or two sentence statements. They are elected the represent the people’s interests.

That example from New England in KJP’s article looks like a stadium surrounded by an outlet mall. 🤢

Browns owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam say they’re exploring a domed stadium in Brook Park ‘that could transform our area’ https://www.cleveland.com/browns/2024/03/browns-owners-jimmy-and-dee-haslam-say-theyre-exploring-a-domed-stadium-in-brook-park-that-could-transform-our-area.html I can’t read this so I don’t know what the ins and outs are. I’m personally not in favor of spending huge amounts of tax money on a stadium in Brook Park. At least downtown you can make a loose connection that this helps the region prosper by strengthening the core. But building in Brook Park really makes it all about fun times for football fans.

I totally get the negative feedback people have about this design. It's not beautiful, certainly. But I lived in an apartment building with a similar design in D.C. It also had long, windowless hallways and the exterior was basically a giant, unadorned brick wall with windows. But it was one of the best buildings I ever lived in because it was well-maintained inside and out and walkable to desirable amenities. The other designs were definitely more exciting but I think bringing more people into the neighborhood is worth it. As long as they really focus on keeping the building up. If they don't maintain it, it'll age terribly.

It's frustrating to read but not surprising. Despite all the good work that has been done, we (our regional leadership) need to be more aggressive to achieve "escape velocity" on stagnation. What are our policy priorities and where is government investment going--and are those things going to keep people here and attract new people? The thing I observe as an average resident is that Greater Cleveland has a lot of entrenched interests, many of which mean well, but they slow down momentum for change. In fact, most people don't want change or prefer to look backward. I'm not sure how you break through that but it's needed to drive positive growth here, imho.

Isn't there also a question of fairness? Who gets to decide who gets cheaper rent?

Maybe there is a restaurateur around who can provide context but ChatGPT says that rent on expensive urban locations can be up to 20% of revenue. Assuming $11,000 a month in rent, then that’d be $55,000 in revenue per month.

Devil’s advocate, it says the current rent paid is $4,300. The landlord bought the building for $1.1M. I don’t know all the details but you’d definitely need more than $4,300 a month to break even.

Clearly they need to do a better job of communicating. I just read a bunch of Crains stories and in 2021, they said the full master plan would cost $2B. However, last year they said that Phase 1 would cost $800-900M and they are working under the assumption that trips will increase to 11M. Maybe someone else can clarify but it sounds like they got $175M of that from the airlines they've been negotiating with to start, and one would assume they hope to get more/the rest as they hit new milestones. But maybe I'm wrong?

I don’t think the arguments against suburbs are very effective. So many hinge on the idea that if a person lives in a suburb, they are immoral. I see this from Cleveland council people on social media. It’s like how PETA goes after people who eat meat. I get where they are coming from but you can’t persuade people by condemning them. The thing I always come back to is, if you want to “beat” suburbs, offer a better product. In 2024, there isn’t that much housing to choose from and it is expensive. From what I have read, Cleveland doesn't have much unused housing that is in good condition either, so it’s not like if 20,000 new homeowners decided to move in tomorrow there would be housing for all of them. And the hot neighborhoods have houses approximating Solon prices or more. If cities would make it easier to add more housing or replace low quality houses, they would be at an advantage. Like was said earlier, most suburbs don’t want to grow, so whoever is willing to offer more better, newer options is going to be attractive. I actually think this is a big risk for suburbs. Their populations are going to age and since they have worked against growth or change at for so long, they won’t be desirable anymore. Any given city council meeting in the suburbs has people ranting about not changing anything. This is where Cleveland can win.

Seems like a giant miss to not include any housing in the plan. That seems like a no-brainer to re-invent old-school shopping centers into the Crocker Park/Van Aken model.

That's good to know because I had seen you write about this before. The way this Crain's article makes it sound, things are getting darker.

I was curious what folks here thought of this article last week in Crain's. Really gloomy reporting. Realty development slowdown on horizon due to rising interest rates, building costs

I agree about schools. I think KJP's point about affordable, high-quality housing is critical. This article from Crain's last week was an eye-opener. There is demand for new builds here... but the cost to produce them is as expensive as in other parts of the country where they sell for much higher prices. So, developers are turning their attention elsewhere to make better returns. The author doesn't clarify why, but my guess is it's so expensive to build here because we don't have enough workers. This to me sounds like a market failure the government needs to help address. Can the government help subsidize trade training? Can we get more government money to help cover housing construction/renovation costs? It seems to me investments like that would pay off.

https://signalcleveland.org/browns-pitched-cleveland-city-council-on-1-billion-stadium-renovation-members-say/ This process seems extra screwy to me.

There isn't any way to say that for sure because they haven't made their full intentions clear. They have only said they plan to keep the brewpub in Ohio City.

I'm just a random person, but my concern is them moving 200 jobs out of Cleveland which I assume would include moving their HQ address. Sure, Ohio City keeps the brewpub but all the jobs and tax revenue from their national sales moves to Avon. If they don't do that, then it's not that big of a deal to me.

Kudos to Crain's. This is how you follow up on someone else's reporting. At this point, renovating the stadium doesn't make sense to me. Where would they play while the stadium is getting gutted? We talked about Columbus. Could they do "home" games in Detroit or Buffalo? Doesn't seem like a good idea. If they built a new stadium somewhere else, they can stay in the current stadium until it's done. The city would surely extend their lease if they needed more time. I can see why they bought the Brook Park land. If there is nowhere else available to them in the city, it seems like a no brainer. EDIT: I should clarify, no brainer for them. I would prefer any positive, transformational visions taking place in the city, though.

I agree. But I also had an experience in Ohio City a month ago when it was really cold where I found a fine parking spot a 9-minute walk from where we needed to go, and I was overruled by my SO 😃

Reasonable point. Considering all the other industry in that area, it doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me. But I can see why the company would be nervous to get pinned in there with the risk of the neighborhood changing and not really any more space to build out in if they wanted to. At this point, their land on the peninsula is probably worth a lot more, right?

Fair point. To me the brew pub part isn't that important but it gets all the attention. If they move the brunt of their business to Avon, all that tax revenue from the employees and from national income goes where--Avon and Lorain County? Why can't there be a manufacturing facility in this same area near houses? It's not like they are spewing toxic chemicals or using plutonium. Personally, I'd lose a lot of brand affinity for them because I think of the city as part of their identity. If they aim to get huge nationally, perspectives like mine may not matter. Luckily we have a lot of good local options.

I got a gift certificate to Sibling Revelry a couple of years ago that I haven't used because I don't want to drive to Westlake. There ain't no way I'm driving out to Avon. I would be curious to know of any market research they have that shows there are more potential customers in the far western suburbs vs. downtown. I don't work in the beer business, so maybe that space they bought is to small. But if this on-site brewpub is a big focus for them it seems nuts they'd want to be an empty field vs. all that new housing and a revived riverfront.

We're weaker as a society with such degraded local media. Below are few examples of coverage over the years that has been nominated for Pulitzers. Strong newspapers in the olden days had the resources to investigate these stories and withstand pressure from outside to stop them. I support independent media and am grateful for it, but it's not fair to expect a handful of reporters to have the same ability to investigate and report as hundreds. It was a different time, and it surely wasnt' without flaws, but I don't think we're better off without these strong local news sources. Alison Grant of The Plain Dealer, Cleveland, OH For articles uncovering corrupt dealings between contractors and city officials in the suburb of Beachwood that resulted in indictments and significant reforms. Dave Davis and Joan Mazzolini of The Plain Dealer, Cleveland, OH For their series of stories exposing abuses by Ohio doctors and hospitals, which resulted in significant reforms in the state's regulatory system. Dave Davis and Ted Wendling of The Cleveland Plain Dealer For their series about victims of botched radiation therapy and lax regulation by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and other agencies.

The thing that really gets me is the condescension to the reader. It’s not like this was some salacious rumor about a public official that risked defamation. The team and city both put our statements and at that point it is surely fair game. If you think the reporting is dubious, go out and tell us the truth. Or at least do your own reporting and tell us what you find. This reaction to me basically said to readers that the PD isn’t very good at its job. Which is too bad because it has such a storied history.

I don't think it is bootlicking to create and maintain mutual interest with billionaires. It doesn't mean anyone has to roll over and do whatever they ask. I'd say Cleveland lost strong allies with how things went down with John D. and Peter B. Lewis. Unfortunately, we don't really know what's going on behind the scenes here, so it leaves a lot of room for the imagination. I think there should be more pressure for transparency, especially if at issue is public money and resources.