Cleburger

That is not a true statement. Domes are often used because of the sheer size, not the seating. The host network gets prime production, but as it's a large national sporting event other media networks, writers, columnist, etc need access and domed stadiums can be blocked off, especially the area's that are good for football but bad for basketball so that other media outlets can set up their kiosks. The next three mens final four will be hosted in domes. They do this so the playing floor can be raised to meet the 45k seat min. and other areas of the dome used for marketing/advertising. We'll have to agree to disagree then, even though you are reinforcing my point. The MAC tournament is not the NCAA Final Four, thus reaffirming my statement that the MAC tourney is best hosted in an NBA building. You also correctly point out that the NCAA scales down 80,000 seat domes into a more manageable 35,000-45,000 seats. Many of these seats go to corporate sponsors as comps in lieu of sponsor dollars. My point was, the MAC tournament should not be a justification for spending $200 million to put a lid on First Energy Stadium. There are very few events that could justify recouping this cost. I think you've misunderstood . I agree the Q is the right size for the MAC Basketball tourney. However, you statement that the NCAA has trouble filling seats for final fours is incorrect. The NCAA needs the size of those stadiums not for the seating, but for all the other production values not seen to a TV viewer or visitor. There are things that need to be done, that cant be done in a 20k seat area. Also, in regard to "corporate" sponsors there are only three NATIONAL, Coke, ATT and Capital one. They cannot buy tickets, if they are it's violating their agreements, as it can be seen as purchasing ticket for family and friends of players. There are a sh!tload of policies on tickets and corporations. If you say that company's are buying show me an example so I can look deeper into it. I think we are on the same page then--I thought you were making the argument for the MAC tourney moving to CBS, which is clearly not the case. Also note that I never said the sponsors were buying tickets directly--they are included as a part of their sponsorship deal as "comps".

That is not a true statement. Domes are often used because of the sheer size, not the seating. The host network gets prime production, but as it's a large national sporting event other media networks, writers, columnist, etc need access and domed stadiums can be blocked off, especially the area's that are good for football but bad for basketball so that other media outlets can set up their kiosks. The next three mens final four will be hosted in domes. They do this so the playing floor can be raised to meet the 45k seat min. and other areas of the dome used for marketing/advertising. We'll have to agree to disagree then, even though you are reinforcing my point. The MAC tournament is not the NCAA Final Four, thus reaffirming my statement that the MAC tourney is best hosted in an NBA building. You also correctly point out that the NCAA scales down 80,000 seat domes into a more manageable 35,000-45,000 seats. Many of these seats go to corporate sponsors as comps in lieu of sponsor dollars. My point was, the MAC tournament should not be a justification for spending $200 million to put a lid on First Energy Stadium. There are very few events that could justify recouping this cost.

IMO the Q is the right sized venue for the MAC Tourney. The NCAA has trouble filling seats on the final four games in stadiums--they are always well below the building's actual capacity.

I would be doubtful about the possibility of a Big Ten title game, though I wouldn't write the idea off completely. However I have to believe that the stadium (with a dome) would have a great shot at hosting a MAC title game considering the MAC is headquartered here AND Northeast Ohio almost certainly has the largest number of MAC alumni of any city anywhere. How are the MAC tournament decisions made now? I assume this means basketball, correct?

Not "we". I don't want it outdoors. I want a dome. Of course I want a winner too. That's the most important. But having a team in the 21st century would be nice too. Only, what, five football stadiums have no sponsorship name? And having a retractable roof at best is another thing that updates that stadium. I have no interest in, no attachment to, and no desire to continue to be antiquated in everything we do in order to hold on to a romanticized image of a team and city that no longer exists. No thank you. Change the name of the stadium (check.), get a dome and stop playing. I feel sorry when I hear people talk this way. Because the Browns have a great tradition. And it's one that's outdoors. Winning has nothing to do with the structure. It has to do with running a great organization. Green Bay and New England come to mind, they arguably play in two of the worst climates in the league.

There are probably truth in both assertions MTS. My point was mainly to say that without a guarantee of a Superbowl, I would not invest in a dome. There are simply not enough indoor stadium events to justify the cost. Plus, it's Browns football. We want a winner. And we want them outdoors. A roof would do nothing to sell tickets if they keep fielding the same schlock.

BTW, terms of the naming rights deal will "remain confidential" and money will be used to make the Browns "more competitive" -- Haslam. He was asked if a roof was being considered for the stadium. Haslam was non-committal: "We're going to look at a lot of different options for the stadium." And... Architects will continue to be engaged but "Winning is the best way to improve the fan experience." He nailed it on the winning thing. Look at Municipal Stadium. Even in the 80's it was already passed its prime but the team was winning so people loved the place, obstructed views and all. And that was after long summers of the Indians stinking up the joint. Careful--you'll awaken the ghost of Sid Monge. First Energy Field needs no lid. It needs a winning team. You won't be able to see an orange seat in the house with a contending team. As I've said upthread, the only way I would consider a roof is if the NFL guaranteed a Superbowl in return, like Detroit received. I don't think we have the Fortune 500 muscle that Detroit did. End of story. And what does the fortune 500 have to do with Superbowl site selection? Im interested in hearing your thoughts. What Detroit had was more central hotel rooms, than we currently have and Penske Group (Headed by Roger Penske of Shaker) used the racing, auto industry and the 40th anniversary of the superbowl and tied it into american's heart land. However, I do agree that if a dome is needed a guarantee for a future Superbowl should be included along with better marketing for the Hall of fame game, perhaps moving that game to Cleveland (sorry Canton). Sorry, what I meant and should have clarified: Detroit had the big three auto makers who spend a TON on NFL advertising, not only for the Superbowl but during the course of the regular season. This gave them extra muscle that the team used when Ford Field was built to get the big show back. If you remember, it was the blizzard-fouled Superbowl in Pontiac at the old Silverdome that sent the NFL packing to warmer climates for better than two decades.

BTW, terms of the naming rights deal will "remain confidential" and money will be used to make the Browns "more competitive" -- Haslam. He was asked if a roof was being considered for the stadium. Haslam was non-committal: "We're going to look at a lot of different options for the stadium." And... Architects will continue to be engaged but "Winning is the best way to improve the fan experience." He nailed it on the winning thing. Look at Municipal Stadium. Even in the 80's it was already passed its prime but the team was winning so people loved the place, obstructed views and all. And that was after long summers of the Indians stinking up the joint. Careful--you'll awaken the ghost of Sid Monge. First Energy Field needs no lid. It needs a winning team. You won't be able to see an orange seat in the house with a contending team. As I've said upthread, the only way I would consider a roof is if the NFL guaranteed a Superbowl in return, like Detroit received. I don't think we have the Fortune 500 muscle that Detroit did. End of story.

I'd welcome him back. More so after there is a trophy up in Dan's office at the Q.

I like to read the words "Cleveland is a growing city" it's refreshing. :) It certainly is, but given the nature of his business I take it with a grain of salt. I could also see them moving into a market with lower-paid immigrant workers and competing for market share. I seem to remember hearing the same out of Cleveland hacks when "Ace" came around to compete in the market.

Sure. Why not? It's been used in countless other cities in much larger applications (the new Bay Bridge in SFO comes to mind). Obviously it would need a fence for protection from the passing traffic, perhaps even a weather barrier. This has been discussed in great detail further upthread. Just revoicing my frustration here. It can be done if ODOT were taken out of the equation.

Tremont and Cleveland are both missing out on a great opportunity to bring even more residents into the neighborhood with a safe, quick commute via bicycle. Once again ODOT is stuck in 1960 and the country is moving in a very different direction.

If only it had a "rock n roll" bike/pedestrian lane.... (sigh)

For shame! For shaaaaammmmmme!

Update on West 73rd on Cleveland.com. http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/01/clevelands_west_73rd_underpass.html

No no no no no. Can you imagine that helmet if Michael Vick ends up here (a rumoured possibility with a hiring of Kelly)?

I have never heard that either. Agree with assertion on floorplans. If I remember right the Marriott is about 28 stories plus mechanical on top. I would also think that to increase the height of it would ruin the architects vision of Key Center. Right now they compliment each other.

That's true of industrial/warehousing or similar commercial activities. But if there's a desire to place housing, retail, basic services etc. within 1,000 feet of transit stops, then there's a lot more cleanup required. My thought is if the city had a choice between a large manufacturing plant and a large residential development in this area, they'd much prefer the former. By the way, I think the perfect name for this road would be (Garrett) Morgan Parkway. Especially since it will contain traffic lights. :-) Is there any precedent, besides 19th century factory tenaments, for actually tying the two together? How about a manufacturing facility that employees local residents living in these new structures?

That's true of industrial/warehousing or similar commercial activities. But if there's a desire to place housing, retail, basic services etc. within 1,000 feet of transit stops, then there's a lot more cleanup required. Even then, the level regulations and types of waste may not be enough for future residents: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/19/lead-smelter-cleanup-liabilities/1766747/

Here is a link to that article, which spells out a "handshake" deal but still no written commitment. Yet it does appear to be close. http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/12/rta_xerox_close_to_resolving_l.html

I have emailed Jay and will do so again today. No matter what happens with the church I am concerned that we get something that makes sense on the overall site. I'm still crossing my fingers for mixed use, hopefully including a bar and coffee shop!

I just drove by a few minutes ago and the church is standing tall! In fact, if you have a chance run by it and note how nice it looks now that Malloys and Giant Eagle are out of the way. Before I was neutral on saving it so long as something worthwhile replaced it. Now I think it may be worth saving.

If and when they get to that point, could be a great cross-marketing opportunity for Dan Gilbert's Horseshoe and RTA. A Horseshoe-provided RTA shuttle from the exburbs would also help them with parking issues.

I am still getting the error as of today. How are we doing on spam/bot registrations?

It would be quite the walk from the show floor to the stadium field. Not ideal. And wouldn't a hotel on the Amtrak site run into problems due to hazmat cargo as KJP has mentioned?