February 15, 200619 yr I don't like this idea. I did not hear what was proposed yesterday, but a cap on the field would not solve the problem. People forget that the entire Ford Field complex is indoors.
February 15, 200619 yr A dome on Browns Stadium for $200 million? You could build another bus line for that much!
February 15, 200619 yr A dome on Browns Stadium for $200 million? You could build another bus line for that much! I thought that they were asking for $90 million. Where did you get the $200 million figure?
February 15, 200619 yr PD's article last week said $60-200 million. Now Corna is saying $90 million. Who knows how accurate that is. I think Ewoops idea is a great one. There just aren't enough events that could cover the costs of this to say we'll do it because maybe we will get X or Y. We need a commitment to get X and Y.
February 15, 200619 yr Wow. What tripe reported by Channel 5. If Corna thinks that Ford Field sees use every day, he's only off by about 345 days a year. Never mind the area immediately surrounding Ford Field is a complete dead zone on non-game days. 'cause you know, if there ever was a city to emulate, it's Detroit </sarcasm>. If Polensek thinks that the failure to capitalize on the lakefront has anything to do with the lack of a dome on the stadium, he should get kicked out of office for being such a blind boob. Poor planning and pedestrian access have hurt the lakefront--not the lack of a dome (visit Chicago, Mikey!). Now, perhaps these guys can start addressing issues that are more important to the lifeblood of the city than this colossal waste of money?
February 15, 200619 yr I'm kind of split on the issue; but the thing that sticks out in my mind is this: If you put a dome on Browns Stadium, why even bother building it near the lake in the first place? I like the whole lakefront atmosphere, and with a dome, you wouldn't be able to see Ohio's greatest natural feature!
February 15, 200619 yr yea how about that ugly parking lot warehouse dock thing to the north of the stadium. that could use some $60-200 million developments... heh
February 16, 200619 yr Here are my thoughts: In concept, I have absolutely no problem with the project. A retractable dome will greatly enhance the the return on the city's investment if it is built in conjunction with an expanded convention center. The problem with the current stadium and a renovated/new convention center is that they are public investments that don't create enough return on the dollar. A new cc in Cleveland will probably improve business, but not to an extent that justifies the investment. We need something unique, something that can be catalytic. A new cc will only serve to make us look more like other midwest cities. We need to stand out. This project must bring something different to Cleveland. We all rue the decision to build the stadium at its current site. We also don't like that its only used 10 times per year. A retractable dome would allow Cleveland to watch the Browns in the environment that we associate with Browns football and also allow Cleveland to attract many big ticket sporting events. Also, with the future closing of the IX Center, Cleveland needs a place to hold the large conventions and shows that currently are islanded off in Brookpark. A retractable dome/cc will create that opportunity. Furthermore, there would be a fantastic opportunity to bridge the railroad tracks and shoreway. Conceptually, its a great idea. But, we don't have a good grasp on the true construction costs. Could the city afford to pay for the infrastructure maintenance? Would the NFL, NCAA, etc promise to hold big-ticket events in Cleveland? Do we have enough hotel rooms in downtown for those events? Would newly constructed hotels be able to survive even with the increase in business? Can we market ourselves well enough to attract new business? What is the financial worse case scenario? We need to dream big and then crunch the numbers to see if the dream makes sense. Dismissing a new idea without further thought hurts Cleveland as much as building the big project without doing a prior reality check.
February 16, 200619 yr We need to dream big and then crunch the numbers to see if the dream makes sense. Dismissing a new idea without further thought hurts Cleveland as much as building the big project without doing a prior reality check. Well said. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
April 28, 200619 yr From KJP and the 4/27/06 Brooklyn Sun Journal: Developer: Dome adds stadium use Thursday, April 27, 2006 By Ken Prendergast Brooklyn Sun Journal Bringing a Super Bowl to Cleveland a decade from now isn't the only reason why Bob Corna wants a retractable roof added to Cleveland Browns Stadium. In leading his campaign, the Avon-based developer and architect points out that the stadium sits virtually empty 355 days per year, wasting valuable lakefront land. We've got a lakefront we're trying to develop, Corna says. When you tie in the convention center, you can do a lot more. You can do a Lake Erie boat show. You can do large equipment shows. You can do concerts on a much larger level. This is not just a cover; it's building a little bit of the lakefront park. But what we have instead is a giant dinosaur. Adding a roof to the stadium could cost $70 million to $90 million. Corna and UniSystems of Minneapolis, which builds stadium roofs, are proposing to add four towers at the open corners of the stadium. Support cables would descend from those towers to hold up the clear roof. Construction could take three years so as not to interfere with Browns home games. MORE: http://www.cleveland.com/sun/brooklynsunjournal/index.ssf?/base/news-0/114615646467850.xml&coll=3
April 30, 200619 yr Besides the fact that Cleveland Browns Stadium was built in the wrong place, it's just one of the most awkward and unaesthetically pleasing stadiums in the NFL. I can't imagine what adding a retractable dome would look like.
April 30, 200619 yr its not exactly east to make such a beheomoth attractive. But if you say most unpleasing, then I say: arrowhead, meadowlands, FedEx field, sun devil stadium, raymond james (a pirate ship?), monster stadium, dolphins stadium, alltell, mcAfee colliseum, qualcomm, rca dome, georgia dome, ralph wilson.....well you get the point. as for the location. Do you mean as in the land is much more valuable as something else, or I prefer to drive an hour to the game to the I-71/I-76 interchange park in a sea of parking lots for a stadium in the middle of nowhere?
Create an account or sign in to comment