24 minutes ago, infrafreak said:

Akron Fulton seems like it would be more appropriate - its aerial distance is almost the same as Lost Nation from CLE (both around ~30 miles vs ~40 for CAK) and doesn't have the scheduled commercial service that CAK has. That being said, Summit County is not part of the same MPO - it is part of AMATS rather than NOACA.

 

AKR also doesn't have an ILS precision approach like BKL and CAK.   All the approaches at AKR are non-precision, with higher visibility minimums.   

I am generally in the camp of “Cleveland has BOATLOADS of waterfront or near-water land available for development without getting rid of Burke airport, so let’s see something get developed in those areas first”; that said, I’m not understanding why CAK is not a potential reliever airport. Is there an explicit reason why this is not an option? (It being in a separate planning area NOACA vs AMATS doesn’t really seem like a good reason.)

^It is a reliever airport of sorts. The point is for an actual emergency a passenger jet is not going to have that kind of time to fly 40 miles and line up with that runway. 

5 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

I am generally in the camp of “Cleveland has BOATLOADS of waterfront or near-water land available for development without getting rid of Burke airport, so let’s see something get developed in those areas first”

 

This has been discussed countless times on this thread....while I am a supporter of BKL but also agree with your statement.  We live in a non-dense city with acres of open land for development, including on the lakeshore.   If this was all developed like Chicago, then I would be all for developing Burke.  

 

But even if the city gave away the 450 acres to a developer, they would have to remediate the landfill and build in a market that struggles to recover construction costs.   IMO this would yield a suburban like development much like on the waterfront in Buffalo NY. 

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/7-Harbour-Pointe-Cmn-Buffalo-NY-14202/30199122_zpid/

 

I'm sure none of the Urban Ohio crew would approve of this! ? 

 

 

6 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

I’m not understanding why CAK is not a potential reliever airport. Is there an explicit reason why this is not an option? (It being in a separate planning area NOACA vs AMATS doesn’t really seem like a good reason.)

Per the FAA website https://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/passenger_allcargo_stats/categories/

 

RelieverAn airport designated by the Secretary of Transportation to relieve congestion at a commercial service airport and to provide more general aviation access to the overall community (§47102(23)).Nonprimary

 

If you ever sit down to read the Federal Aviation Regulations, there are many guidelines left purposely vague by the FAA.   This definitely fits that category.   IMO the designation of Burke ties into CLEs Class B operations from better times as a small hub.  This being said, anyone who deals with government agencies can testify that REDUCING levels once a capacity has been established is a very hard thing to do.  

 

 

 

 

 

On 8/28/2020 at 9:32 AM, KJP said:

Responding from the Cleveland Lakefront Development thread...

 

 

Yes, according to FAA regulations, it does. Every major metro's principal airport must have a reliever airport to accommodate general aviation and keep it separate as much as possible from commercial aircraft. Of the four reliever airports to Hopkins (Burke, Cuyahoga County, Lost Nation, Lorain County), Burke is Cleveland's primary reliever airport and far exceeds the other airports in terms of facilities and capabilities. Consider:

 

NOACA states that Burke is the primary reliever for Hopkins, due to its location in downtown. Both of Burke's runways are longer than those of any of the other 4 reliever airports. Burke's primary runway is 6,198 feet long, and its secondary is 5,200 feet. Cuyahoga County's longest is 5,101 feet, while Lost Nation's longest is 5,013 feet. Cuyahoga County has only one runway, as does Lorain. The other 3 have two runways each. Burke has much more itinerant ramp area than the other 4 reliever airports (Burke's 60,000 square yards vs. Cuyahoga County's 46,680), and parking (Burke's 750 spaces vs. 250 at Cuyahoga County). Burke's terminal building is also far larger than any other (67,000 square feet vs. 6,000 square feet at Cuyahoga County). However, Burke has only the fourth largest amount of hangar space compared to the other 4 airports-37,665 square feet, vs. 150,326 at Cuyahoga County, 137,385 at Lost Nation, and 41,000 at Lorain.

http://levin.urban.csuohio.edu/academics/graduate/mupdd/mupdd_capstone03/studentwork/limmerb.html

 

So until one of the other reliever airports is upgraded with facilities and capabilities that are at least equal to that of Burke, I would be very surprised if the FAA would allow the city to close Burke.

I don’t understand why the city and county don’t merge the airports. That’s one way to get the traffic up at Burke and the development and attract businesses that would be needed as a result. The County airport has a lot of businesses around it and having those businesses at Burke would help the airport and the downtown economy in many ways. I know merging came up briefly a few years ago but no one pursued it. I’m of the camp that we need to keep Burke. But that doesn’t mean that we have to keep it as it is. We can do things to get more traffic out of it and to make Burke have more of a positive impact on the economy. We have plenty of land to develop around the lakefront before we’d have to even think about closing Burke, so let’s get some good use out of it and increase the traffic

1 hour ago, inlovewithCLE said:

 The County airport has a lot of businesses around it and having those businesses at Burke would help the airport and the downtown economy in many ways. I know merging came up briefly a few years ago but no one pursued it.

 

All that business around the County airport (Ken Ricci's billion dollar aviation group) isn't very portable and probably would leave town rather than move to Burke.  If Burke is headed for ultimate closure, County must have 2-3,000 feet added to its runway. Personally I hope Ricci is buying every house on the market within a mile of County.

4 minutes ago, Dougal said:

 

All that business around the County airport (Ken Ricci's billion dollar aviation group) isn't very portable and probably would leave town rather than move to Burke.  If Burke is headed for ultimate closure, County must have 2-3,000 feet added to its runway. Personally I hope Ricci is buying every house on the market within a mile of County.

Burke isn’t closing anytime soon, which is why I brought it up. Since it’s going to be open, might as well increase its usage. And I do remember it was reported that the city and the county had preliminary discussions on a merger. But if a merger happened, it’d be the county airport merging into Burke, not the other way around (and I think it should merge into Burke, for the record)

On 8/28/2020 at 11:50 AM, audidave said:

^It is a reliever airport of sorts. The point is for an actual emergency a passenger jet is not going to have that kind of time to fly 40 miles and line up with that runway. 

I can't envision a scenario where a passenger jet would get re-routed to Burke.

2 hours ago, skiwest said:

I can't envision a scenario where a passenger jet would get re-routed to Burke.

I think in the Kellerman days when Continental ran the CLE hub up to almot 300 daily operations, most general aviation traffic stayed away from CLE and went to BKL or CGF.  There's lots of GA at CLE this year.

18 hours ago, Dougal said:

I think in the Kellerman days when Continental ran the CLE hub up to almot 300 daily operations, most general aviation traffic stayed away from CLE and went to BKL or CGF.  There's lots of GA at CLE this year.

There's lots of GA at CLE this year because COVID has slammed commercial traffic so ATC is allowing GA pilots in there for "fun".   The same thing is happening at ORD, LAX, etc.  In NYC, GA pilots are doing "NYC Class Bravo Tours", with touch and goes at JFK, LGA and EWR just because they finally can.   

This was precovid but I remember (maybe not fully fleshed out) folks talking about maybe allegiant or even spirit or some low cost carrier kind of using it as a base of sorts. If there were some base of sorts of imagine that'd help immensely.

2 minutes ago, GISguy said:

This was precovid but I remember (maybe not fully fleshed out) folks talking about maybe allegiant or even spirit or some low cost carrier kind of using it as a base of sorts. If there were some base of sorts of imagine that'd help immensely.

 

Breeze Airways

 

http://neo-trans.blogspot.com/2020/02/burke-lakefront-airport-ready-for-take.html

Cross posted: Ultimate Air Shuttle will be suspending all flights until the Spring of 2021

 

 

Some interesting old photos of Burke and its surroundings

 

Anybody familiar with this guy, Ross DiBello, who is campaigning for Cleveland mayor on a platform that includes closing Burke Lakefront Airport?

 

https://rossdibello.com/

3 hours ago, LlamaLawyer said:

Anybody familiar with this guy, Ross DiBello, who is campaigning for Cleveland mayor on a platform that includes closing Burke Lakefront Airport?

 

https://rossdibello.com/

 

Never heard of him.   I would immediately want to press him on his plans to close Burke, as like with many other politicians, his plans are vague at best (from his website):  

 

Close Burke Lakefront Airport and create a vibrant lakefront with endless live/work/learn possibilities for Clevelanders.

 

What exactly would be "endless?"  

On 9/30/2020 at 4:13 PM, CleveFan said:

@KJP( and like minded forum folk) think you’re a big Burke supporter - but IF it was moved eastward and that lakefront parcel was rezoned a la the Flats West Bank - couldn’t it then become a perfect place for a “Viaduct Tower” type residential tower or two? Seems like that combination of very private lake and skyline views would be an easy sell. This is completely hypothetical at the moment obviously  but imagine  the potential of a Gold Coast type neighborhood directly north of downtown with a boardwalk and bike path just behind it -Add the rock hall, science center and Browns stadium for your western view - wow. 

I think the decision to place BKL on the lakefront decades ago was a huge mistake. Unfortunately it also takes decades to get FDA approval to mothball an airport. Also as I recall, BKL was built atop landfill so while appealing, building towers there may not even be feasible.

I don't believe anyone has proposed building towers on that site.  But marinas, gardens, walking/biking trails and various other recreational and entertainment venues are possible. 

 

Edited November 12, 20204 yr by skiwest

Too many of these for me to even be bothered by Burke.  Every single surface-parking lot should be filled in- along with across the river before closing down Burke should even be considered.

 

5 hours ago, LlamaLawyer said:

Anybody familiar with this guy, Ross DiBello, who is campaigning for Cleveland mayor on a platform that includes closing Burke Lakefront Airport?

 

https://rossdibello.com/

 

A few friends from case follow him on instagram. I think I might message him and ask him about the airport and get back to y'all.

^^^Why want buildings on the lakefront though when we could theoretically have something like this.

 

36 minutes ago, Oldmanladyluck said:

Too many of these for me to even be bothered by Burke.  Every single surface-parking lot should be filled in- along with across the river before closing down Burke should even be considered.

 

I strongly disagree for a number of reasons.

 

First, the land area of Burke may very well be as much as or more than all the surface parking lots you highlighted.

 

Second, having better parks makes an area much more livable, particularly when you've got Edgewater Park so crowded during the summer that the police literally block it off and don't let more people in. The highest and best use of the area that is Burke Lakefront Airport is a giant lakefront park like the one in Milwaukee from my picture above.

 

Third, the two problems (Burke and surface lots) are really not comparable to each other. The surface parking lots downtown are a symptom of urban decay. They will go away as downtown continues to be revitalized. There will probably always be some surface lots--Manhattan, the Philadelphia riverfront, and Chicago Loop all have at least a couple surface lots--but as development continues, the Cleveland lots will dissipate.

 

Burke Lakefront Airport, on the other hand, is not a symptom of urban decay. It is a symptom of bad urban planning. As the region finally rebounds and eventually grows, removing Burke will not become easier. There are other airports in bad locations. You can have terrible urban planning in a growing city. Boston Logan is in a terrible location. Unfortunately for Boston, there is no alternative airport. Fortunately for us, there is an alternative airport which is well connected to downtown and could absorb 100% of Burke's traffic easily. 

 

So I don't really find surface lots and Burke Lakefront Airport analogous at all. And I think, frankly, that Burke is and should be a much more political issue than surface lots. The city owns Burke and can decide what to do with it. Most of the surface lots you reference the city has only indirect control over.

1 hour ago, Frmr CLEder said:

 Also as I recall, BKL was built atop landfill so while appealing, building towers there may not even be feasible.

I once lived in Palos Verdes, geologically a 1,100 foot high sea mount at the south end of Santa Monica Bay. It was a kind of Eden with semi-seedy Redondo Beach and Los Angeles on three sides.  The west portion of the mount, facing Catalina, was considered "unbuildable" and slowly shaking into the Pacific Ocean. However, when 1/3 acre residential lots approached $2 million in value, suddenly it became very buildable.  

 

The same valuation will happen to BKL and new construction will happen. We're just not there yet and I'd say don't rush things by accepting the first ho-hum proposal that comes along.

24 minutes ago, Dougal said:

I once lived in Palos Verdes, geologically a 1,100 foot high sea mount at the south end of Santa Monica Bay. It was a kind of Eden with semi-seedy Redondo Beach and Los Angeles on three sides.  The west portion of the mount, facing Catalina, was considered "unbuildable" and slowly shaking into the Pacific Ocean. However, when 1/3 acre residential lots approached $2 million in value, suddenly it became very buildable.  

 

The same valuation will happen to BKL and new construction will happen. We're just not there yet and I'd say don't rush things by accepting the first ho-hum proposal that comes along.

 

Except that Burke isn't just unbuildable, it's actually an airport right now. The land will never be so valuable that a new project will just happen because the city leaders believe Burke should be an airport forever.

 

Cleveland is also not Los Angeles. Driving down St. Clair from the highway to E. 13 it's just underutilized parcel after underutilized parcel. If we're lucky, most of that will be built on 30 years from now. All of those parcels are easier to develop than Burke. As an aside, that's a reason this city has so much potential--we could quadruple the central business district's population and still have vacant lots to build on.

 

What Burke does have that those parcels don't is a great location and the ability to be one of the greatest urban parks in the country. That will only happen with city action. The private sector cannot do it.

 

Sorry for the biting tone, but I'm feeling especially passionate about Burke today.

Have you all ever been to Buffalo?   It's a great town and very similar to Cleveland--a rust belt city with no population growth.    The housing on Buffalo's much-vaunted waterfront is what I would fear if we gave Burke to a developer.   They would want to turn it into a suburban gated community with "some" park/marina access.  To me, this is a bigger mistake than a downtown airport, which is something most major cities do not have.  

 

Buffalo waterfront:   https://earth.google.com/web/search/buffalo+ny/@42.88448681,-78.88806007,185.50135258a,384.51398609d,35y,34.12183908h,59.99992283t,-0r/data=CnUaSxJFCiUweDg5ZDMxMjYxNTJkZmU1YTE6MHg5ODIzMDRhNTE4MWY4MTcxGWnStxZ3cUVAIbTUMDI3uFPAKgpidWZmYWxvIG55GAEgASImCiQJx-Pvz-e9REAR1Pnsiva7REAZCA4XX1xsVMAhFXemHC1tVMA

2 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

Have you all ever been to Buffalo?   It's a great town and very similar to Cleveland--a rust belt city with no population growth.    The housing on Buffalo's much-vaunted waterfront is what I would fear if we gave Burke to a developer.   They would want to turn it into a suburban gated community with "some" park/marina access.  To me, this is a bigger mistake than a downtown airport, which is something most major cities do not have.  

 

Buffalo waterfront:   https://earth.google.com/web/search/buffalo+ny/@42.88448681,-78.88806007,185.50135258a,384.51398609d,35y,34.12183908h,59.99992283t,-0r/data=CnUaSxJFCiUweDg5ZDMxMjYxNTJkZmU1YTE6MHg5ODIzMDRhNTE4MWY4MTcxGWnStxZ3cUVAIbTUMDI3uFPAKgpidWZmYWxvIG55GAEgASImCiQJx-Pvz-e9REAR1Pnsiva7REAZCA4XX1xsVMAhFXemHC1tVMA

 

As someone who's been to Buffalo 3+ times a year since I was born, I've:

 

1. Never known or met anyone who lived there. 

 

2. Never heard it discussed. 

 

Moreover, it's completely separated by the highway from the rest of Buffalo. Every time I'm going to Niagara I think, why the hell did they isolate a purely residential community like that? 

Just now, YABO713 said:

 

As someone who's been to Buffalo 3+ times a year since I was born, I've:

 

1. Never known or met anyone who lived there. 

 

I knew someone that lived there.   He was a doctor so he loved it, but agreed with me that it was disconnected and there was nothing walkable.  

 

1 minute ago, YABO713 said:

Moreover, it's completely separated by the highway from the rest of Buffalo. Every time I'm going to Niagara I think, why the hell did they isolate a purely residential community like that? 

 

Imagine driving in Cleveland in 2035 and saying the same thing.

30 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

 

I knew someone that lived there.   He was a doctor so he loved it, but agreed with me that it was disconnected and there was nothing walkable.  

 

 

Imagine driving in Cleveland in 2035 and saying the same thing.

I’ll send you an invoice for the nightmares this will give me.

8 hours ago, LlamaLawyer said:

Sorry for the biting tone, but I'm feeling especially passionate about Burke today.

I don't feel bitten.  😉 

 

 

 

15 hours ago, Cleburger said:

Have you all ever been to Buffalo?   It's a great town and very similar to Cleveland--a rust belt city with no population growth.    The housing on Buffalo's much-vaunted waterfront is what I would fear if we gave Burke to a developer.   They would want to turn it into a suburban gated community with "some" park/marina access.  To me, this is a bigger mistake than a downtown airport, which is something most major cities do not have.  

 

Buffalo waterfront:   https://earth.google.com/web/search/buffalo+ny/@42.88448681,-78.88806007,185.50135258a,384.51398609d,35y,34.12183908h,59.99992283t,-0r/data=CnUaSxJFCiUweDg5ZDMxMjYxNTJkZmU1YTE6MHg5ODIzMDRhNTE4MWY4MTcxGWnStxZ3cUVAIbTUMDI3uFPAKgpidWZmYWxvIG55GAEgASImCiQJx-Pvz-e9REAR1Pnsiva7REAZCA4XX1xsVMAhFXemHC1tVMA

 

 

The other thing about Buffalo though is that the picture you posted is just a small segment of their waterfront. And the entire remainder of the waterfront is beautiful lakefront park, marina, etc. So I can understand people not talking too much about about the lakefront housing because the other 90% of the waterfront is being used well. As we all know, Cleveland has the opposite. Between the E. 55 marina and Wendy Park, the only part of our waterfront that is being used well is teeny-weeny Voinovich park and the surrounding attractions. Everything else is bare pavement.

16 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

 

The other thing about Buffalo though is that the picture you posted is just a small segment of their waterfront. And the entire remainder of the waterfront is beautiful lakefront park, marina, etc. So I can understand people not talking too much about about the lakefront housing because the other 90% of the waterfront is being used well. As we all know, Cleveland has the opposite. Between the E. 55 marina and Wendy Park, the only part of our waterfront that is being used well is teeny-weeny Voinovich park and the surrounding attractions. Everything else is bare pavement.

 

True to an extent.  There are other parks and then the newer Canalside district at the river mouth.  But to include all the other Buffalo waterfront, we also need to include Gordon Park, Whisky Island, Wendy Park, Flats East/West Bank, Merwin Wharf, and Edgewater in the Cleveland comparison. 

 

My point continues to be that the 450 acres that is Burke Lakefront would be a tall order for Cleveland and any potential developer to see through to a use that we could all agree is a true urban improvement.  

 

 

7 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

 

 

My point continues to be that the 450 acres that is Burke Lakefront would be a tall order for Cleveland and any potential developer to see through to a use that we could all agree is a true urban improvement.  

 

Complete agreement from me. And on the other hand, Burke does have the potential to be the greatest lakefront greenspace in the entire Great Lakes. Not saying it would be, but it realistically could be with a significant and smart investment. That's an amazing opportunity.

32 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

 

The other thing about Buffalo though is that the picture you posted is just a small segment of their waterfront. And the entire remainder of the waterfront is beautiful lakefront park, marina, etc. So I can understand people not talking too much about about the lakefront housing because the other 90% of the waterfront is being used well. As we all know, Cleveland has the opposite. Between the E. 55 marina and Wendy Park, the only part of our waterfront that is being used well is teeny-weeny Voinovich park and the surrounding attractions. Everything else is bare pavement.

Which suggests that public access improvements also should be considered for land by the lake both east and west of Burke. 

 

I don't fully understand the obsession with closing Burke, although I agree that it could be a nice park if the city doesn't auction it off to a developer for Bratenahl II.  Also remember that while the city might own Burke, the FAA has a lot of say in whether the airport stays or goes.  The state of Ohio also might have a say as Burke is beyond the natural shoreline.  Further improvements to the county airport could be made to make it a better airport than Burke, and that might make Burke easier to shutter.  (And a rapid ride to the county airport would make it more accessible as well.)

7 hours ago, Dougal said:

I don't feel bitten.  😉 

You know what they say? Once bitten... 2 reliever airports... 

 

 

I think we should finish this park and marinas before we close an airport. At least it could be a test run for options and public input for a future w/o a lakefront runway. 

36 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

Complete agreement from me. And on the other hand, Burke does have the potential to be the greatest lakefront greenspace in the entire Great Lakes. Not saying it would be, but it realistically could be with a significant and smart investment. That's an amazing opportunity.

 

I don't know about the whole great lakes, but on lake erie i would have to vote presque isle as the best greenspace between toledo and buffalo.

 

i would love to see a beach at dike 14 (renamed a while back to "Cleveland Lakefront Nature Preserve")  even though i know birdwatchers love the spot and would protest. I dont think you would want a beach behind the breakwall anyways

 

I would support the government abandoning their old bratenhal facility at MLK for redevelopment before advocating for burke land

Edited November 13, 20204 yr by MrR

30 minutes ago, Foraker said:

Which suggests that public access improvements also should be considered for land by the lake both east and west of Burke. 

 

I don't fully understand the obsession with closing Burke, although I agree that it could be a nice park if the city doesn't auction it off to a developer for Bratenahl II.  Also remember that while the city might own Burke, the FAA has a lot of say in whether the airport stays or goes.  The state of Ohio also might have a say as Burke is beyond the natural shoreline.  Further improvements to the county airport could be made to make it a better airport than Burke, and that might make Burke easier to shutter.  (And a rapid ride to the county airport would make it more accessible as well.)

If you live on Public Square and have a bike but no car, you can get to the following lakefront parks within 15 minutes:

• Wendy Park
• Kirtland Park
• Voinovich Park

None of those parks are all that great. If Burke were a big housing development or something the city didn't own, we'd all have to just say "Oh well, even though we are a city on a lake, we do not have a truly great lakefront park which is accessible to downtown residents without a car." But Burke is owned the city and if we just got rid of the airport, planted some trees, and left it doing virtually nothing else, you would have a very respectable and large lakefront greenspace that all downtown residents could enjoy. That's the bare minimum and we could incrementally improve the park from there. I and many others are obsessed with Burke because it's such a big potential. If we want people to live downtown, we need amenities. People relocate primarily because of (1) jobs, (2) family ties, (3) cost of living, and (4) amenities. #4 is the only item you can directly control through public investment, and Burke is the biggest opportunity for new amenities, primarily for downtown residents, but secondarily for the whole region.

 

I have two little kids and live in Cleveland Heights where we can walk to several nice parks. If I lived downtown at, say, Harbor Verandas, the easily accessible greenspaces would be Voinovich Park, Willard Park, and the malls/public square. Those are not the kinds of parks where you can keep two little kids amused on a Saturday afternoon. Burke could be that though, and downtown, especially some of the sorely underdeveloped areas in historic Asiatown, could be amazingly attractive places to live for people who love parks. Cleveland can be a city where everyone downtown can ride their bike to a 450-acre grassy, forested park. Think about what a draw that is. Imagine if Central Park were a giant airport. It would be insanity. If Burke becomes a park and we look back on its life as an airport, I think we will all recognize the same insanity.

 

The final reason for the obsession is what you point out about the FAA. Realistically though, (1) if the city leaders push to get Burke closed down, they will succeed. Do you really think Marcia Fudge and Sherrod Brown wouldn't be happy to sponsor bills closing Burke if the Mayor and council ask them to? (2) No matter what, the process will take years. That's all the more reason to act now. (3) No time is better than now to get the process moving. The airline industry is facing the worst catastrophe in its history--worse than 9/11. The airline industry may not fully recover for years. Cleveland Hopkins would actually benefit from the increased traffic from Burke. With the IX Center closing, there's a lot of space for expansion even if Hopkins knows that absorbing some of Burke's traffic is on the horizon. So the timing really couldn't be better, and we should get the ball rolling in the next couple years or we're missing some opportunities. 

 

1 hour ago, Foraker said:

Also remember that while the city might own Burke, the FAA has a lot of say in whether the airport stays or goes.  

If they city wants to use the property for other purposes, they should be allowed to do so and not be held hostage by the FAA.   

1 hour ago, WhatUp said:

You know what they say? Once bitten... 2 reliever airports... 

 

 

You raise a good point.  IF BKL is ever shut down, it should only be after CGF's runway is extended; I don't know how CGF is considered a reliever with the current length. A runway extension, of course, kicks off another NIMBY brawl.

2 hours ago, skiwest said:

If they city wants to use the property for other purposes, they should be allowed to do so and not be held hostage by the FAA.   

 

My understanding is that the FAA's control stems in part from their regulation of interstate travel (ensuring that there are airports where visitors from other states can land) and from past money given to the city to maintain and upgrade Burke.

 

If the city wants to close Burke, they may have to pay back some of that money from the FAA, money that Cleveland does not have.  (At least, that's my basic understanding from what others have said in this thread, I'm not an expert in this area). 

 

The FAA also wants airports for civilians to learn to fly, which probably includes lots of takeoffs and landings without big commercial jets nearby.   (Although to me it seems like one major commercial airport (Hopkins) and one reliever airport (County) should be sufficient.)

 

I don't disagree that the lakefront by downtown would be better as a public park than a working dock or airport, but I don't think we have the money to do either right now. 

On 11/13/2020 at 10:19 AM, LlamaLawyer said:

If you live on Public Square and have a bike but no car, you can get to the following lakefront parks within 15 minutes:

• Wendy Park
• Kirtland Park
• Voinovich Park

None of those parks are all that great. If Burke were a big housing development or something the city didn't own, we'd all have to just say "Oh well, even though we are a city on a lake, we do not have a truly great lakefront park which is accessible to downtown residents without a car." But Burke is owned the city and if we just got rid of the airport, planted some trees, and left it doing virtually nothing else, you would have a very respectable and large lakefront greenspace that all downtown residents could enjoy. That's the bare minimum and we could incrementally improve the park from there. I and many others are obsessed with Burke because it's such a big potential. If we want people to live downtown, we need amenities. People relocate primarily because of (1) jobs, (2) family ties, (3) cost of living, and (4) amenities. #4 is the only item you can directly control through public investment, and Burke is the biggest opportunity for new amenities, primarily for downtown residents, but secondarily for the whole region.

 

I have two little kids and live in Cleveland Heights where we can walk to several nice parks. If I lived downtown at, say, Harbor Verandas, the easily accessible greenspaces would be Voinovich Park, Willard Park, and the malls/public square. Those are not the kinds of parks where you can keep two little kids amused on a Saturday afternoon. Burke could be that though, and downtown, especially some of the sorely underdeveloped areas in historic Asiatown, could be amazingly attractive places to live for people who love parks. Cleveland can be a city where everyone downtown can ride their bike to a 450-acre grassy, forested park. Think about what a draw that is. Imagine if Central Park were a giant airport. It would be insanity. If Burke becomes a park and we look back on its life as an airport, I think we will all recognize the same insanity.

 

The final reason for the obsession is what you point out about the FAA. Realistically though, (1) if the city leaders push to get Burke closed down, they will succeed. Do you really think Marcia Fudge and Sherrod Brown wouldn't be happy to sponsor bills closing Burke if the Mayor and council ask them to? (2) No matter what, the process will take years. That's all the more reason to act now. (3) No time is better than now to get the process moving. The airline industry is facing the worst catastrophe in its history--worse than 9/11. The airline industry may not fully recover for years. Cleveland Hopkins would actually benefit from the increased traffic from Burke. With the IX Center closing, there's a lot of space for expansion even if Hopkins knows that absorbing some of Burke's traffic is on the horizon. So the timing really couldn't be better, and we should get the ball rolling in the next couple years or we're missing some opportunities. 

 

 

If someone lives on public square with no car and 2 kids that love parks larger than Voinovich - they're doing their kids a disservice. 

Edited January 15, 20214 yr by MrR

not many people live north of superior until you hit e55th. a burke park would have to be a regional draw to be high usage. i think better serve the community by investing in the land north of the RR tracks between E55th and MLK, personally

Cleveland's urgent need right now is economic and job growth---after that amenities will naturally follow.  Burke contributes to economic and job growth and its removal would undermine that growth.

I envision Burke being transformed into more than just a park.  I'd like to see a marina, a couple restaurants, walking/biking trails, maybe a mini amusement park, perhaps a restoration of the Donald Gray Gardens that were destroyed when the new stadium was built.  And there are probably many more recreational and entertainment possibilities.

2 hours ago, Pugu said:

Cleveland's urgent need right now is economic and job growth---after that amenities will naturally follow.  Burke contributes to economic and job growth and its removal would undermine that growth.

 

If it weren't for weather Burke would be ideal for Allegiant.  The private traffic alone makes it worth while, I would like to see the Grand Prix come back.

My understanding is that, to convert Burke into anything other than airport will require providing a general aviation reliever for Hopkins at another airport. FAA doesn't want GA and commercial aircraft mixing. And no other reliever airport north of the Ohio Turnpike offers the runway lengths, tarmac or terminal facilities that Burke has. If you want Burke to go away, enhance one of the reliever airports to provide at least what Burke provides. Otherwise, FAA will fight it.

On 11/17/2020 at 10:25 AM, Pugu said:

Cleveland's urgent need right now is economic and job growth---after that amenities will naturally follow.  Burke contributes to economic and job growth and its removal would undermine that growth.

I agree that our urgent need is job growth, but I don't agree that amenities will follow. Lots of cities are horrific urban planning disasters despite significant growth.

 

As far as Burke's contribution to the economy, I'm sure it has a significant contribution. It's just hard for me to imagine that a combination of Hopkins and Cuyahoga Airport (perhaps with upgrades as @KJP suggests) wouldn't take over nearly all of that economic impact pretty quickly. Are there actually businesses for whom Hopkins is too far away from downtown?

And as a little further follow up, two more points.

 

1. Cleveland has reasonably good park access right now, but the number one strike against it is acreage, since there really aren't any big city parks right now. See https://www.tpl.org/city/cleveland-ohio

2. The 7 cities with the worst park systems are all growing, economically successful cities. So economic success does not automatically lead to good parks.See https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollective/best-worst-cities-convenient-public-parks-and-why-it-matters/159186/

6 hours ago, LlamaLawyer said:

I agree that our urgent need is job growth, but I don't agree that amenities will follow. Lots of cities are horrific urban planning disasters despite significant growth.

 

As far as Burke's contribution to the economy, I'm sure it has a significant contribution. It's just hard for me to imagine that a combination of Hopkins and Cuyahoga Airport (perhaps with upgrades as @KJP suggests) wouldn't take over nearly all of that economic impact pretty quickly. Are there actually businesses for whom Hopkins is too far away from downtown?

 

I meant that funding and demand will follow---not that parks would just magically appear.  Cuyahoga County is no substitute for Burke. Its farther from Downtown than is Hopkins and it has too many NIMBY issues to have a comparable airfield. This talk of taking down BKL for 'lakefront use' is ludicrous as we have plenty of lakefront acreage available north of the stadium for decades that have not yet been developed.

^From that park website you linked, "83% of [CLE] residents live within a 10 minute walk of a park....National average 55%."  That's pretty impressive.

On 11/17/2020 at 3:49 PM, KJP said:

My understanding is that, to convert Burke into anything other than airport will require providing a general aviation reliever for Hopkins at another airport. FAA doesn't want GA and commercial aircraft mixing. And no other reliever airport north of the Ohio Turnpike offers the runway lengths, tarmac or terminal facilities that Burke has. If you want Burke to go away, enhance one of the reliever airports to provide at least what Burke provides. Otherwise, FAA will fight it.

How many other cities have a CAK? I'm just asking because Akron/Canton seems like a pretty robust airport that most cities the size of Cleveland don't have 50 miles away from their main airport and Downtown. Wouldn't that be a general aviation reliever?  Couldn't they easily handle the pressure? I have no idea, I was just wondering because CAK hasn't been mentioned as a spoke in this aviation wheel of NE Ohio in this thread.

 

It's an inconvenience being 45 min away from where you intended, but is that deal breaker for the FAA?

Edited November 21, 20204 yr by metrocity