12 minutes ago, TBideon said:

To be fair, Northerly Island is a disappointment, as the erosion issue has not been resolved. Access is quite limited, though the little beach has a charm and the occasional concert brings in folks.

 

Maybe, in hindsight, it wasn't worth it. It's pretty empty for the most part.

 

They already had a large lakefront park in Grant Park which is easier to get to, right next to downtown, and not accessible only from a small land bridge as Northerly is. A Burke park wouldn’t be set up the same way. So in the context of Chicago you’re not completely off base but I don’t think it invalidates anything with Burke.

Edited August 21, 2024Aug 21 by mu2010

10 minutes ago, TBideon said:

To be fair, Northerly Island is a disappointment, as the erosion issue has not been resolved. Access is quite limited, though the little beach has a charm and the occasional concert brings in folks.

 

Maybe, in hindsight, it wasn't worth it. It's pretty empty for the most part.

 

40 of the 119 acres of the island are a newly created Nature Preserve. That seems to important to note when discussion how "empty" it is.

 

Quote

Northerly Island's nature preserve is meant to revitalize the environment that was originally there. The new park is now home to migratory birds and natural wildlife. To protect

its new inhabitants, dogs are not allowed on the park.

 

The mile of paved paths has no lighting to create as natural of an environment as possible. The park is open until 11:00 PM, and it is advised by park security to bring a flashlight.

 

The park is home to many of Illinois' natural wildlife, including monarch butterflies and herons. The park's 5-acre lagoon welcomes many kinds of animals. To make the park as inviting to these animals as possible, over 11,000 shrubs and 400 trees were planted.

 

The creation of the lagoon led to considerable weakening of the eastern shore of Northerly Island. Stones were piled high enough to hamper the view of Lake Michigan. Erosion continued, destroying and closing most of the east side trail. The city has plans for repairs but no timetable.

 

The erosion issue is unfortunate, but it is certainly fixable. 

 

Hypothetically, having another Jacob's Pavilion- sized venue and a new 40 acre nature preserve is guaranteed to make up the amount of people that currently fly in and out of Burke. Just the Pavilion alone is multiples more than the amount of people that currently use the airport.

 

Oh yeah, and you still have another 400 acres left over.

Not to get too off topic, but if you walk around all over it and head as far south as the path(s) go, the park is very underwhelming. 

 

20ish years and it's just so empty and mostly inaccessible (I jog there quite a bit at different hours and barely see anyone). I just can't imagine calling the project a success by any metric. Certainly not a revenue generator or a real attraction save for the few concerts. 

 

Maybe it's not a good comparison to Burke.

56 minutes ago, TBideon said:

Not to get too off topic, but if you walk around all over it and head as far south as the path(s) go, the park is very underwhelming. 

 

20ish years and it's just so empty and mostly inaccessible (I jog there quite a bit at different hours and barely see anyone). I just can't imagine calling the project a success by any metric. Certainly not a revenue generator or a real attraction save for the few concerts. 

 

Maybe it's not a good comparison to Burke.

For what it's worth, I enjoyed the park. It's a nice break from the hustle and hustle of the city. What I'd say it principally needs is more trees, that would basically solve all of its problems, erosion, feeling empty, functioning as a real nature preserve, etc. 

 

I agree that the transformative potential of Burke is far larger than that of Northerly Island, but if something similar is really the best we'd get, I'd still close Burke without a second thought. A second rate park would still do more for the average Cleveland resident than Burke ever has. To be clear, I think the potential exists to turn Burke into a truly transformational park (though it will take time), but even if it falls short of that goal it will still be put to better use than it is now. 

Cleveland City Hall: Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb makes moves toward closing Burke Lakefront Airport

by Nick Castele

September 16, 2024

 

Cleveland City Hall is releasing two studies that lay the groundwork for shutting down the airport, which occupies prime downtown land on the Lake Erie shoreline. 

 

...

 

The first study argues the economic hit of closing Burke is small and explores the benefits of redeveloping the land. The second study lays out multiple paths for shuttering the airport.

 

The city has shared the results of both studies with the Federal Aviation Administration, which has the power to approve or deny an application to close Burke. If the FAA doesn’t bless a closure, Cleveland has another option: ask Congress for the OK to shut down Burke.

 

https://signalcleveland.org/cleveland-mayor-justin-bibb-makes-moves-toward-closing-burke-lakefront-airport/

Long-awaited Burke Lakefront Airport studies show closure is ‘possible’ and ‘economically advantageous,’ Bibb says

Courtney Astolfi - Cleveland.com - Sep. 16, 2024

 

 

"It laid out three closure options, but each comes with challenges or time restrictions: ... Long-term scenario: Federal grant-related obligations expire in 2036, and state-related obligations expire in 2039. ... Shorter-term solution: The FAA has the power to waive Cleveland’s grant-related restrictions ... Congress route: Congress could pass a law that would shut down Burke and provide an end-run around the FAA approval process. ... A study by Econsult Solutions ... found that closing Burke would result in only “relatively low true loss of economic activity” for Cleveland and Cuyahoga County."

 

 

Study PDFs: 

 

Study 1: Valuing Burke Lakefront Airport - Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study 2: AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN NARRATIVE REPORT WORKING PAPER #4: BKL CLOSURE ALTERNATIVE

 

The fact it still loses money despite not even being in the commercial aviation game which is the most expensive operation of all to run out of an airport with a passenger terminal and all the associated costs that come with that is very telling to me. The sooner it's closes the better. 

One interesting thing to note is that there really isn't that much difference between the maximum and minimal development scenarios in the report. The park acreage is actually the same either way, it's just indoor sports facilities versus hotels/housing/retail. It looks like either way we'd be getting at least 200 acres of active/passive green space. The report also only looked at the airport, not the confined disposal facilities to the north which are probably only good for green space anyway due to their location/soil etc. Basically even maximum development is still assuming Burke will be primarily turned into a park, which is was I want, so that sounds fantastic to me! 

 

 

 

So basically the net economic benefits for the region of having Burke (as opposed to bare asphalt) on the lakefront amount to $9.6 million a year, which is about $21,333 per acre per year, or a little under $1,800 per acre per month.

 

I think the report demonstrates what many suspected--that Burke is a horribly inefficient use of land.

 

Let's take an absurd example. Say we take 200 acres and turn them into a trailer park, leaving the rest to the Metroparks to do as it will. On the 200-acre trailer park, let's say very conservatively that you can get 10 mobile homes per acre. That's 2,000 mobile home lots. If you rented each lot out for $400 a month base rent, you would exactly match the current $9.6 million in net revenue, just through rentals, without even considering the economic benefits from having 2,000+ additional residents.

 

I think the highest and best use of this land is obviously *not* a mobile home park. And so the fact that Burke could be operated more economically as a mobile home park than an airport demonstrates how absurd it is.

 

I've seen enough. Let's shut it down.

Shutting down Burke JUST to have a park is a total waste. I’d rather it maintain airport operations. Now if they are giving it to that crook Haslam for a Stadium Crocker Park for the Clowns to play in DT, I can live with that

To add to what @snakebite & @LlamaLawyer said, if the city is subsidizing Burke from the general airport fund it makes it more expensive to run Hopkins. I would assume those increased costs are captured in the price of parking, tickets, ect at Hopkins. All that's to say that removing Burke would make Hopkins a more competitive airport to fly out of and operate, no?

 

From Signal Cleveland's reporting, "As it currently stands, Burke operations are a net fiscal drain on the city. The airport generates $508,000 in tax revenue for the city. But Cleveland subsidizes Burke at a cost of $1.2 million from the city’s airport fund, which makes its revenue from the airlines."

9 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

So basically the net economic benefits for the region of having Burke (as opposed to bare asphalt) on the lakefront amount to $9.6 million a year, which is about $21,333 per acre per year, or a little under $1,800 per acre per month.

 

I think the report demonstrates what many suspected--that Burke is a horribly inefficient use of land.

 

Let's take an absurd example. Say we take 200 acres and turn them into a trailer park, leaving the rest to the Metroparks to do as it will. On the 200-acre trailer park, let's say very conservatively that you can get 10 mobile homes per acre. That's 2,000 mobile home lots. If you rented each lot out for $400 a month base rent, you would exactly match the current $9.6 million in net revenue, just through rentals, without even considering the economic benefits from having 2,000+ additional residents.

 

I think the highest and best use of this land is obviously *not* a mobile home park. And so the fact that Burke could be operated more economically as a mobile home park than an airport demonstrates how absurd it is.

 

I've seen enough. Let's shut it down.

 

RE mobile homes.  Careful what you wish for!    

 

What the city study leaves out is what would happen if we actually actively promoted Burke, instead of sitting there like Frank Jackson at his desk for 3 hours a day waiting for the phone to ring with some magic economic development to drop in his lap. 

We are on the cusp of flying taxis and personal air transport.   It may be super nearsighted to do away with a CBD airport right as these things are taking off.  (pun intended)    What could the city do to attract one of these new startups to move here?   Could Cleveland become a leader in regional air taxi service by connecting Detroit, Chicago, Buffalo, etc?   We may never know...

 

 

 

 

9 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

So basically the net economic benefits for the region of having Burke (as opposed to bare asphalt) on the lakefront amount to $9.6 million a year, which is about $21,333 per acre per year, or a little under $1,800 per acre per month.

 

I think the report demonstrates what many suspected--that Burke is a horribly inefficient use of land.

 

Let's take an absurd example. Say we take 200 acres and turn them into a trailer park, leaving the rest to the Metroparks to do as it will. On the 200-acre trailer park, let's say very conservatively that you can get 10 mobile homes per acre. That's 2,000 mobile home lots. If you rented each lot out for $400 a month base rent, you would exactly match the current $9.6 million in net revenue, just through rentals, without even considering the economic benefits from having 2,000+ additional residents.

 

I think the highest and best use of this land is obviously *not* a mobile home park. And so the fact that Burke could be operated more economically as a mobile home park than an airport demonstrates how absurd it is.

 

I've seen enough. Let's shut it down.

While this is an interesting analysis. The one done in the study is perhaps more useful. Of the 245 acres considered to be Burke in the study, 200 are marked as green space, leaving 45, slightly less than 20% for development. The study concludes that closing Burke and developing less than 20% of it would net more economic benefit to the region than leaving Burke open. 

 

Personally I'd argue parks have lots of benefits as well, most of which are either hard to measure, and only some of which are economic in nature. So leaving 80% of this land for active/passive green space is not a waste at all. 

1 minute ago, Cleburger said:

We are on the cusp of flying taxis and personal air transport.   It may be super nearsighted to do away with a CBD airport right as these things are taking off.  (pun intended)    What could the city do to attract one of these new startups to move here?   Could Cleveland become a leader in regional air taxi service by connecting Detroit, Chicago, Buffalo, etc?   We may never know...

 

The more I think about this the less convinced I am that if flying taxis require a base of operation with the footprint of Burke they will be widely adopted by cities across the country. 

 

That's not to say Burke couldn't be better utilized in other ways if actively marketed, but would that fall on the Mayor and not the Airport Director? And from what I can tell the Airport Director has seemed to be competent. 

4 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

 

RE mobile homes.  Careful what you wish for!    

 

What the city study leaves out is what would happen if we actually actively promoted Burke, instead of sitting there like Frank Jackson at his desk for 3 hours a day waiting for the phone to ring with some magic economic development to drop in his lap. 

We are on the cusp of flying taxis and personal air transport.   It may be super nearsighted to do away with a CBD airport right as these things are taking off.  (pun intended)    What could the city do to attract one of these new startups to move here?   Could Cleveland become a leader in regional air taxi service by connecting Detroit, Chicago, Buffalo, etc?   We may never know...

The mobile homes thing is a thought experiment, lol. I would be strongly against actually using the land that way.

 

I agree with your general point about promoting Burke more, but why not do that with Hopkins instead?

 

As far as air taxi, aren't most of those vertical take-off and landing using a helipad? Do you really think personal air transport would take off (pun intended) using a technology that requires an airport? I would think such services would *only* have broad appeal if you could use them without having to set foot inside an airport.

5 minutes ago, Ethan said:

While this is an interesting analysis. The one done in the study is perhaps more useful. Of the 245 acres considered to be Burke in the study, 200 are marked as green space, leaving 45, slightly less than 20% for development. The study concludes that closing Burke and developing less than 20% of it would net more economic benefit to the region than leaving Burke open. 

 

Personally I'd argue parks have lots of benefits as well, most of which are either hard to measure, and only some of which are economic in nature. So leaving 80% of this land for active/passive green space is not a waste at all. 

I completely agree with all of this. The only point I'm trying to make is that when you take the $9.6 million/yr. figure (which is a big number) and the acreage of Burke (again, big enough that it's hard to visualize) and break them both down into smaller chunks, you get a vivid illustration of just how little value is being extracted from the land under the current usage.

I'm a firm believer in "there's no such thing as a coincidence", and it's weird timing that Burke finally is on the chopping block shortly after the Haslam's point to it as an impediment to a dome 

Signal Cleveland says that the FAA is so far not super receptive to the idea of closing the airport. An alternate option is to get Congress to do it. Maybe Justin and Jimmy can work a bipartisan miracle but seems unlikely. Or, worst-case scenario, the city waits until 2036 and moves to shut it down when federal grants run out. Just a long way off. https://signalcleveland.org/cleveland-mayor-justin-bibb-makes-moves-toward-closing-burke-lakefront-airport/

24 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

I'm a firm believer in "there's no such thing as a coincidence", and it's weird timing that Burke finally is on the chopping block shortly after the Haslam's point to it as an impediment to a dome 

I understand why you'd think that, but unless Cleveland can get buy in from the Federal government (which seems like it aught to be easy, but in the real world is unlikely) these things are operating on different time scales. Even if Congresses passes a law allowing Burke to be closed this year I'm not sure it will close soon enough to allow construction of a domed stadium, either at its current location, or on what is now Burke. The federal bureaucracy moves too slow.

 

The source at the Signal Cleveland explicitly rejects this having anything to do with the Browns. Plus it just isn't necessary to involve the Haslams to explain the study. It's good politics for Bibb, closing Burke is popular. Plus, it gives him a potential legacy project, park named after him, etc. 

 

5 minutes ago, coneflower said:

Signal Cleveland says that the FAA is so far not super receptive to the idea of closing the airport. An alternate option is to get Congress to do it. Maybe Justin and Jimmy can work a bipartisan miracle but seems unlikely. Or, worst-case scenario, the city waits until 2036 and moves to shut it down when federal grants run out. Just a long way off. https://signalcleveland.org/cleveland-mayor-justin-bibb-makes-moves-toward-closing-burke-lakefront-airport/

Let's sneak this into some bloated omnibus bill and get it over with! No one will even notice. 🤣 

49 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

The more I think about this the less convinced I am that if flying taxis require a base of operation with the footprint of Burke they will be widely adopted by cities across the country. 

Early on I don't think the FAA will just be allowing these things to land willy nilly.  In the design and testing phase, they will most certainly require some kind of designated airfield.  The location of BKL makes it at very attractive option for such a purpose.  

51 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

That's not to say Burke couldn't be better utilized in other ways if actively marketed, but would that fall on the Mayor and not the Airport Director? And from what I can tell the Airport Director has seemed to be competent. 

I would argue otherwise, especially in terms of business development.   Both Burke and Hopkins are blank slates in some ways terms of land available.     

 

The Sherwin Williams hanger at CLE is the first significant development on the field in decades at CLE, but was sort of a lateral since Sherwin Williams already based their aircraft at another FBO there.    Yet little KCGL Cuyahoga County has managed to land a $50 MILLION Flexjet headquarters there (yes $50 MILLION) 

 

Cleveland is in a sweet spot geographically for aviation related businesses, yet we lag behind other comparable cities.   I place a good deal of the blame on an inert City of Cleveland management that is not aggressive in pursuing opportunity. 

40 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

I'm a firm believer in "there's no such thing as a coincidence", and it's weird timing that Burke finally is on the chopping block shortly after the Haslam's point to it as an impediment to a dome 

 

100%.   As stated upthread, "money gets money!"   

 

1 hour ago, LlamaLawyer said:

I agree with your general point about promoting Burke more, but why not do that with Hopkins instead?

 

As far as air taxi, aren't most of those vertical take-off and landing using a helipad? Do you really think personal air transport would take off (pun intended) using a technology that requires an airport? I would think such services would *only* have broad appeal if you could use them without having to set foot inside an airport.

If this technology is in still in its infancy there is no way the FAA allows this to go forward at a busy Class B passenger airport like Hopkins.  

 

Once the tech is fully deployed, certainly there will be vertical take off and landing options,   But once again the FAA moves at monolithic speeds.   it would be decades before we see unmanned aerial taxis setting down in a parking lot or on top of a building downtown.   They will require a controlled airspace and room  for errors.  

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, LlamaLawyer said:

So basically the net economic benefits for the region of having Burke (as opposed to bare asphalt) on the lakefront amount to $9.6 million a year, which is about $21,333 per acre per year, or a little under $1,800 per acre per month.

 

How does this compare to the revenue generated for the city from the acres of surface parking lots downtown? 

 

Burke Airport closure studies released by city
By Ken Prendergast / September 16, 2024

 

Two reports laying out the steps for potentially closing Burke Lakefront Airport in Downtown Cleveland were released today by Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb’s Administration. While Bibb said the reports show there are more benefits to closing Burke than costs, he and other city officials caution that no decision has been made to close the airport, so no steps have been started in that direction yet.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2024/09/16/burke-airport-closure-studies-released-by-city/

Finally!  Hopefully Mayor Bibb, having both reports in his hands long before today's release, gamed the next steps during his reported meetings with Pete Buttigieg. Bibb and Ronayne can't miss the narrow window now open to make this happen after 50 years of hoping. Though the area's DC delegation silence is deafening and needs to step up. Just shut it down like Chicago did! GoFundMe whatever may be owed 😂  Maybe Jimmy Haslam will see the reports as an opp to get his desired dome development on the western half and can even bring his bff Dewine on board to help.  The rest can be ceded to Metroparks for a nature preserve developed slowly overtime and dovetail with E55-E72 plans underway.  Also Cuyahoga and Lake County Executive both seem to be getting big FAA funded runway upgrades just in time. 

"The government won't let us close Burke" has become gospel in much the same way that "Cleveland Browns Stadium was built quickly and cheaply" is becoming gospel. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the FAA is a pain in the butt. But I think a coordinated effort to lobby the agency and/or congress to close the airport would take time but would ultimately succeed - there just needs to be the will to do it among local leaders, who mostly have had other problems to worry about up til now.

8 hours ago, mu2010 said:

"The government won't let us close Burke" has become gospel in much the same way that "Cleveland Browns Stadium was built quickly and cheaply" is becoming gospel. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the FAA is a pain in the butt. But I think a coordinated effort to lobby the agency and/or congress to close the airport would take time but would ultimately succeed - there just needs to be the will to do it among local leaders, who mostly have had other problems to worry about up til now.

 

I think it’s pretty clear now that closing the airport is a long-term project. If I’m Bibb, before I make a decision, I’m trying to determine how realistic it is to get an outcome while I am mayor. No matter what, the FAA likely won’t be quick. Lobbying Congress and getting a bill passed or language in something bigger will be really hard. Hopefully whenever they actually pick a position, especially if it is to close, they make it clear this will take time. 

So Burke generates ~$.5M in tax revenue to the city but the city is subsidizing Burke at ~$1.2M. Presumably not all of the operations at Burke are just going to go a way entirely. Some might, but I'd expect most of those operations will move to either Hopkins or the County airports. However, I would expect that most of the operational costs will actually be eliminated when Burke is closed; facility costs, utilities, ect. 

 

That raises two questions in my mind; (1) how would closing Burke affect Hopkins and how should that affect the master plan, and (2) if some of that revenue is going to be lost to the county because some operations move to the County airport then should we just consolidate airport operations at a county level? On the second point, Hopkins is a regional asset, but we know we're not going to be able to get a regional funding structure in place so shifting the burden from Cleveland to Cuyahoga is the next closest option. 

8 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

 However, I would expect that most of the operational costs will actually be eliminated when Burke is closed; facility costs, utilities, ect. 

One thing the city NEVER does is cut jobs.  So the dozens of people that work for the city at Burke will likely get some sort of made up position at Hopkins.  

has there ever been analysis of moving the county airport to burk and consolidating traffic there?

6 minutes ago, Whipjacka said:

has there ever been analysis of moving the county airport to burk and consolidating traffic there?

I don't believe so.  But if they tried there would be 10,000 NIMBYs in Willoughby Hills and Richmond Heights lining up to support it. 

If it's going to cost $10 + X million to close BKL, I'd rather spend it on a flight to another Euro-hub than DUB.

19 hours ago, Dougal said:

If it's going to cost $10 + X million to close BKL, I'd rather spend it on a flight to another Euro-hub than DUB.

I tend to agree on better-uses-for-that-money but I like flying back from DUB -- wish it was an every-day flight. 

 

Part of that $X million is going to be upgrading another airport in the region to be the reliever airport for Hopkins.  Brace yourself for the NIMBYs around the county airport to go nuts when they realize that is part of the plan.

It's also worth remembering that Burke loses money, and Cleveland Hopkins is on the hook for that. That makes closing Burke an investment with a payoff period. I doubt it will be a good payoff period, but we will eventually get that money back. 

 

I think it's safe to assume the payoff period will be such that this it won't be in and of itself an argument for closing Burke, but it definitely takes the sting out of whatever the upfront cost of closing it will be. It's a lot easier to justify spending 30 million to close a liability losing 1 million a year than if it were an asset generating 1 million a year. 

Closing Burke with the current DC administration should be easy if done now and while the 2 reports are still warm, especially with Bibb’s purported contacts. 2025 could be problematic with a new administration. Also, the singular focus on Cuyahoga County airport will only galvanize opposition from those living in its flight path although they knowingly purchased homes next to an airport. Instead, where is the regional solution such as from NOACA representing the five counties and disperse Burke functions among all regional airports. Grace Galluci please join in.

55 minutes ago, Ethan said:

It's also worth remembering that Burke loses money, and Cleveland Hopkins is on the hook for that. That makes closing Burke an investment with a payoff period. I doubt it will be a good payoff period, but we will eventually get that money back. 

 

I think it's safe to assume the payoff period will be such that this it won't be in and of itself an argument for closing Burke, but it definitely takes the sting out of whatever the upfront cost of closing it will be. It's a lot easier to justify spending 30 million to close a liability losing 1 million a year than if it were an asset generating 1 million a year. 

 

I suspect BKL is in fact generating $1 million or more a year in land value appreciation.  I would wait to close it until developers are foaming at the mouth to get their hands on it.  Cleveland should not have to pay out money to make something happen at BKL.  The riverfront, ok, Bedrock needs a push; but not at BKL. 

^ If developers were foaming to build tall west of Burke but were restricted by the flight path I would also factor that in. 

We have had developers foaming in past but not with the necessary political capital behind them. Remember Frank Gehry’s Progressive building for Peter Lewis?
https://www.clevelandskyscrapers.com/progressive-corporation-headquarters

Things may be different this time?

11 minutes ago, Willo said:

We have had developers foaming in past but not with the necessary political capital behind them. Remember Frank Gehry’s Progressive building for Peter Lewis?
https://www.clevelandskyscrapers.com/progressive-corporation-headquarters

Things may be different this time?

 

Possibly, but the city has to understand that a developer or corp has the leverage, not the other way around.

 

Progressive didn't get built because the city opposed integral parking at the behest of the lot owners and operators, not getting that Lewis insisted on it for some pretty sound reasons.

There were also big personalities in play between Lewis and the erratic mayor at the time. By the time that mayor left to raise alpacas it was too late for others to resurrect the plan ( I believe Lewis also froze Cleveland out of his estate planning gifts for a while for a variety of reasons)

That's the same mayor who sold off NASA Glenn to Brook Park in exchange for the IX Center for a new runway that was never built.

On 9/16/2024 at 3:44 PM, Ethan said:

While this is an interesting analysis. The one done in the study is perhaps more useful. Of the 245 acres considered to be Burke in the study, 200 are marked as green space, leaving 45, slightly less than 20% for development. The study concludes that closing Burke and developing less than 20% of it would net more economic benefit to the region than leaving Burke open. 

 

Personally I'd argue parks have lots of benefits as well, most of which are either hard to measure, and only some of which are economic in nature. So leaving 80% of this land for active/passive green space is not a waste at all. 

I was curious to see 45 acres of Burke overlaid on a map. It basically represents the terminal area. 

 

 

 

In case anyone is thinking that's not enough space for development here's similar (slightly smaller) tracts of land laid out over the Warehouse District and the Van Aken District. 

 

 

 

45 acres of development downtown would be transformational multi decade project. And a several hundred acre park would also be transformational for downtown and the surrounding area, just in a very different way. Personally, I'm hoping for Congress to step in and help close Burke so we're not waiting more than a decade just to start the project. But even if that isn't manageable, as the old saying goes, the best time to plant a tree was twenty years ago, the second best time is today, so even if this will take decades we should get started as soon as possible. Worst case scenario we're creating a better city for our kids.

14 hours ago, Ethan said:

45 acres of development downtown would be transformational multi decade project. And a several hundred acre park would also be transformational for downtown and the surrounding area, just in a very different way. Personally, I'm hoping for Congress to step in and help close Burke so we're not waiting more than a decade just to start the project. But even if that isn't manageable, as the old saying goes, the best time to plant a tree was twenty years ago, the second best time is today, so even if this will take decades we should get started as soon as possible. Worst case scenario we're creating a better city for our kids.

As @KJP noted in his article, even if the FAA agrees to close Burke, we're going to have to spend money to upgrade another local airport to be a reliever for Hopkins.  But I agree -- now is as good a time as any to get started.

 

Wasn't there a plan several years ago to build offices along the southern edge of Burke?  Maybe a strip of buildings with a mix of small business/worker housing could be built now, without waiting for Burke to close.

22 minutes ago, Foraker said:

As @KJP noted in his article, even if the FAA agrees to close Burke, we're going to have to spend money to upgrade another local airport to be a reliever for Hopkins.  But I agree -- now is as good a time as any to get started.

 

Wasn't there a plan several years ago to build offices along the southern edge of Burke?  Maybe a strip of buildings with a mix of small business/worker housing could be built now, without waiting for Burke to close.

Yeah, that's probably correct--if we go the FAA approval route. It's one more reason to prefer the option of going over their head, so to speak, by asking congress to grant approval. If congress orders Burke closed through law, that supersedes any FAA regulations or standards.

 

The report suggested one option was to build a hotel without closing Burke, probably in the same area as the previous plan. While that would be my lest preferred option, there's no reason we couldn't get started on that or other ancillary border developments while waiting for Burke to close. If a developer is interested and it can be built before closing Burke, then of course we should start on that. 

1 hour ago, Foraker said:

Wasn't there a plan several years ago to build offices along the southern edge of Burke?  Maybe a strip of buildings with a mix of small business/worker housing could be built now, without waiting for Burke to close.

 

Yep the Geiss plan. It is mentioned in KJP’s latest article. I thought it was a pretty good idea at the time. 

1 hour ago, Ethan said:

Yeah, that's probably correct--if we go the FAA approval route. It's one more reason to prefer the option of going over their head, so to speak, by asking congress to grant approval. If congress orders Burke closed through law, that supersedes any FAA regulations or standards.

 

The report suggested one option was to build a hotel without closing Burke, probably in the same area as the previous plan. While that would be my lest preferred option, there's no reason we couldn't get started on that or other ancillary border developments while waiting for Burke to close. If a developer is interested and it can be built before closing Burke, then of course we should start on that. 

It should also be accompanied by a greenway around the burke lakefront property.   A biking/walking "pier" that gives public access to the harborfront while BKL continues operations. 

I haven’t given up on Jimmy pivoting back to the lakefront with either a short or long term remodel with potential new dome and ancillary development on western edge of the site. Until Bibb, Ronayne, Dewine and Haslam say it’s done everything is on the table (plus Metroparks, Natural History and DC Delegation - what do Sherod or Bernie think). The me too rumblings this week from Hamilton county imply limited State $ will have to be split thereby tilting the odds to remodel on lakefront and hoping to get priority access to development in Burke site once closed. Plus Jimmy can watch from his Bratenahl window.

Good to see Greater cleveland partnership come out in favor of closing Burke:

 

7 hours ago, Cleburger said:

I think to some degree people have some sort of false impression of what this Burkke "waterfront" property would bel. Unless you've spent time on a boat in this location, you might not realize the reality of it.  This is inside the breakwall of the Cleveland Harbor.   There are no waves breaking, but there is plenty of trash, logs etc.  After a big storm the water turns brown and there are lots of dead fish.  It's not exactly some sort of utopian beach. 

Moving to the main thread, since we've drifted away from the stadium. Are you suggesting it's substantially different from the environment at Wendy or Voinovitch Parks? Both of those are inside the breakwall and are nice parks that get good traffic, despite being kind of hard to get to. 

 

I agree with you though on the obsession with "beaches." We won't get a good beach here, just like we won't North of the current stadium. But people want them, and I guess to some people a mediocre beach is better than nothing.

 

In a separate question, why does the breakwall extend so far East? I'm no expert on breakwalls or harbor protection, but it seems like it extends further than it needs to.

 

Regardless, being behind the breakwall also presents a lot of interesting opportunities in the form of water taxi and water recreation. Again, no expert, but I imagine, it makes it a better kayak launch spot, and it's easier to run a water taxi reliably behind the break wall. 

 

I think the water at Burke is an asset, but even if we assume it's not, it's large enough that it could be a fantastic park even if it looked inward. Central Park is almost entirely artificial. Burke isn't as large as Central Park, nor as well located, it's more similar in size to Grant Park, which we should probably draw more of our inspiration from. I bring up Central Park only because I'm sure the Metroparks could do something nice with this large of a blank canvas even if it were surrounded by toxic waste (exaggerating for effect). Size matters when it comes to parks, that's one of things that makes closing Burke attractive to me, not only being on the water. Of course, the water is fine (if not Caribbean), as evidenced by two other well trafficked waterfront parks in a similar situation.