14 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

 

Just to add to my point, if even 10% of Burke can be built on, that allows a massive development. For context, the below encircled area is about 35 acres, i.e. less than 10% the area of Burke. I still maintain most of Burke should be a park, but you can definitely have a large development and a large park coexist.

 

This basically corresponds to the concrete pad with the terminal and other buildings. 

 

23 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

I don't know the answer to this, but it probably means something there are buildings that exist on Burke right now. At least part of the land can accommodate low rise buildings.

Supposedly, the hanger structures (and probably the terminal building) have very wide footers to compensate for sinking into the landfill materials.

 

When the Shoreway had a major reconstruction/pavement replacement a number of years ago, to minimize the duration of lane closures, quick-setting concrete was used.  The reconstruction project used triple the amount of the quick-setting concrete that planned due to excessive damage that was not expected due to settling.  That settling was due to the Shoreway being built on landfill.

Edited November 14, 20222 yr by LifeLongClevelander

19 hours ago, LibertyBlvd said:

I was reading Wikipedia article on KC's downtown airport and saw this:

 

"Airplanes had to avoid the 200-foot (60 m) Quality Hill and the Downtown Kansas City skyline south of the south end of the main runway. In the early 1960s, an FAA memo called it "the most dangerous major airport in the country" and urged that no further federal funds be spent on it."

 

Clearly aviation technology has advanced.  The 1960's predate RNAV GPS units and many ODPs (Obstacle Departure Procedures).    

 

From a modern photo it looks like no one is afraid to fly their multi million dollar jets in there!  

 

 

On 11/14/2022 at 11:42 AM, Cleburger said:

Kansas City  & New York City to start. 

 

 

 

Having a hard time finding the airport in Manhattan.

33 minutes ago, X said:

 

Having a hard time finding the airport in Manhattan.

LGA is right across the river. 

8 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

LGA is right across the river. 

 

Eight miles (25 minutes) from Midtown, 10 miles (30+ minutes) from downtown. Hopkins is slightly farther from Public Square by road (11.6 miles) and only 12-15 minutes away.

4 hours ago, KJP said:

 

Eight miles (25 minutes) from Midtown, 10 miles (30+ minutes) from downtown. Hopkins is slightly farther from Public Square by road (11.6 miles) and only 12-15 minutes away.

 

4 hours ago, KJP said:

 

Eight miles (25 minutes) from Midtown, 10 miles (30+ minutes) from downtown. Hopkins is slightly farther from Public Square by road (11.6 miles) and only 12-15 minutes away.

I can get to Burke’s terminal in 1.7 miles by bike no less. I was hoping Breeze Airlines was going to set up service at Burke.  How cool would that be to say you rode your bike to the airport to catch a flight.

15 hours ago, stpats44113 said:

 

I can get to Burke’s terminal in 1.7 miles by bike no less. I was hoping Breeze Airlines was going to set up service at Burke.  How cool would that be to say you rode your bike to the airport to catch a flight.

Well we did have Ulimate for a hot minute but the pandemic killed the service. 

 

Years ago we did have scheduled service from  BKL via airlines, with Wright Airlines, Midway and Beaver Air (my stepmother was a flight attendant with Wright for a few years when I was younger).  

 

 

 

 

 

City picks consulting team to analyze economics of closing, redeveloping Burke Lakefront Airport  

Published: Apr. 24, 2023, 4:00 p.m

By Steven Litt, cleveland.com

 

"The administration announced Monday it is recommending a team led by Econsult Solutions of Philadelphia to perform a four-month, $115,000 study on the potential of repurposing Burke.

 

Jeff Epstein, the city’s chief of integrated development, said Monday the administration will seek authority from City Council to proceed with the study, which could start as soon as May.

 

...

 

The new study is a companion effort to a separate analysis of Burke launched by the city in 2021 that was expanded in 2022 to look at the aviation and regulatory implications of closing Burke. The city is preparing the analysis for inclusion in a document called an Airport Layout Plan, required by the Federal Aviation Administration." 

 

 https://www.cleveland.com/news/2023/04/city-picks-consulting-team-to-analyze-economics-of-closing-redeveloping-burke-lakefront-airport.html

And the analysis continues.

Oh god, not another study. And if it avoids the longstanding questions - sterilizing the property, finding shovel-ready tenants, and resolving FAA issues - then why even bother unless Bibb is trying to gain some political points.

 

What does the article say about why the study is being done? Might want to read it.

Oh I read it and understand what Econsult will be analyzing. My cynicism is not abated.

 

 

Whenever Burke is talked about I tend to read/hear the phrase "prime real estate." How true is that, really? Sure it's 450 acres of potential blank slate with almost 3 miles of open shoreline encompassing it, but how much of it is actually developable? Also it has very few road connections to the rest of the city, and almost zero water, sewer and electrical infrastructure outside of the terminal area.

 

At this point I can only see two realistic uses for the Burke land:

 

1. Massive public park/nature preserve, á la Dike 14.

2. Move the Port of Cleveland to Burke, then abate/open the former port area (which is closer to downtown and is better connected) for residential and commercial development.

 

If anything I would rather Cleveland focus on the acres and acres of surface parking lots and vacant land all over the city before they decide to make Burke into a 450 acre albatross.

On 5/8/2023 at 4:46 PM, RoabeArt said:

Whenever Burke is talked about I tend to read/hear the phrase "prime real estate." How true is that, really? Sure it's 450 acres of potential blank slate with almost 3 miles of open shoreline encompassing it, but how much of it is actually developable? Also it has very few road connections to the rest of the city, and almost zero water, sewer and electrical infrastructure outside of the terminal area.

 

At this point I can only see two realistic uses for the Burke land:

 

1. Massive public park/nature preserve, á la Dike 14.

2. Move the Port of Cleveland to Burke, then abate/open the former port area (which is closer to downtown and is better connected) for residential and commercial development.

 

If anything I would rather Cleveland focus on the acres and acres of surface parking lots and vacant land all over the city before they decide to make Burke into a 450 acre albatross.

Your point about moving the Port over to Burke would be the only way I would support closing the airport. 

 

People who think by closing Burke we will immediately have hundreds of acres of shovel read land to develop a world class Lakefront are either completely short sighted or clueless. The infrastructure challenge should already be well known. But it's not even connected to downtown, it's like a quarter to half mile east of E9th once you cross the shoreway (Let's be honest, the real barrier to Lakefront development and access). How is that kind of development desirable when it only has one access point across the freeway, and still need to travel east?

 

And even if the infrastructure was figured out, people seriously think all that land would be developed? We spent decades trying to develop the Public Square lots, probably the most valuable real estate downtown. We can't even develop the land north of the stadium or the E9 pier, our lakefront is literally a giant ass parking lot right now. Until we actually have development on these areas, I seriously have no time for people who think we need to close Burke and develop that. 

12 minutes ago, AsDustinFoxWouldSay said:

Your point about moving the Port over to Burke would be the only way I would support closing the airport. 

 

People who think by closing Burke we will immediately have hundreds of acres of shovel read land to develop a world class Lakefront are either completely short sighted or clueless. The infrastructure challenge should already be well known. But it's not even connected to downtown, it's like a quarter to half mile east of E9th once you cross the shoreway (Let's be honest, the real barrier to Lakefront development and access). How is that kind of development desirable when it only has one access point across the freeway, and still need to travel east?

 

And even if the infrastructure was figured out, people seriously think all that land would be developed? We spent decades trying to develop the Public Square lots, probably the most valuable real estate downtown. We can't even develop the land north of the stadium or the E9 pier, our lakefront is literally a giant ass parking lot right now. Until we actually have development on these areas, I seriously have no time for people who think we need to close Burke and develop that. 

I agree with you that closing Burke to free up the land for offices, apartments, condos, etc isn't worthwhile. We have far too many surface lots downtown to even be considering this. That said, I think a lot of the people (myself included) who would like to see Burke closed would like to see the majority of it turned into a large park (under the management of the Metroparks). Making it a park obviates most of the issues of building on infill. Furthermore I would expect planting trees and other plants to strengthen the soil over time. 

 

I would also dispute the notion that the location of Burke is horrible. As a point of comparison, the distance from the tallest building in Chicago to the nearest edge of Grant Park is 0.6 miles. The distance from the tallest building in Cleveland to the nearest edge of Burke is 0.6 miles.

 

Now I realize that's an arbitrary point of comparison hand picked to support my point, but there is still a point to be made. Half of Burke is just across the shoreway from what is technically downtown (well technically all of Burke is downtown, but I digress...) And Burke is basically catty corner with the nine twelve district which is definitely core downtown, and what I'd consider the main central business district. It's also right next to The Rock Hall, Science Museum, The Mather Ship, and a few other small museums, all very logical park adjacent attractions. The location isn't bad, not as good as Grant Park, but it's the best Cleveland will ever see, and it will only get better after the park is built. If you build the park and a few Pedestrian crossings similar to Edgewater I'm sure development would slowly start to move East down St. Claire and Lakeside, given enough time the park may not seem so isolated after all. (And if the shoreway is converted to a boulevard this pace will be all the quicker!)

 

Once Edgewater was fixed up it did wonders for the neighborhood around it. Imagine what a well maintained Burke sized park could do for the St Claire-Superior, Asia town, the Superior Arts district and the Eastern half of downtown more generally over a few decades. This could be truly transformative, and for some of the parts of the city that could most use it. 

 

Realistically I think the far edge of a potential Burke park (east of the innerbelt) would probably function more like Northerly Island than Grant Park. That said, that's not bad! I enjoy Northerly Island, and while the eastern portion of the park will probably be less active than it's western counterpart, that's not bad. I think it would still be a nice shot in the arm to the adjacent neighborhoods! It would also be a fantastic place to route things like the lakefront bikeway through. 

 

All in all, I think Cleveland could use a central jewel in its emerald necklace, and a downtown adjacent (ie walkable) destination park. The land Burke sits on is really the only candidate, so I support closing it. 

Cleveland can't keep the both the stadium AND Burke on the lakefront. One has to go. And it appears that the stadium is staying put.

16 hours ago, LibertyBlvd said:

Cleveland can't keep the both the stadium AND Burke on the lakefront. One has to go. And it appears that the stadium is staying put.

Why does it have to be "all or nothing" in Cleveland?   

 

Let's develop the area around the Stadium into a vibrant walkable neighborhood.  Let's add a greenway around Burke to connect it to Gordon park.  In the meantime Burke should be invested in as an net economic positive to the city. 

 

If, and when, the hundreds of surface lots and acres of urban prairies are filled in someday in Cleveland, then Burke can be addressed.  We like to bulldoze everything in sight and wait for some magic SIM city thing to happen.    That is not reality in Cleveland unfortunately.     

 

 

Surprised to see Cle/Lakefront today on the departures screen at Newark.  I know charters exist into BKL but not sure why they’d display on the screens in the terminal

 

 It’s UAL2505 in case my picture doesn’t come through…

2 hours ago, buckeye1 said:

Surprised to see Cle/Lakefront today on the departures screen at Newark.  I know charters exist into BKL but not sure why they’d display on the screens in the terminal

 

 It’s UAL2505 in case my picture doesn’t come through…

I've seen this happen at Dulles quite a bit, probably for government/military charters there.   

 

Maybe inbound to pick up the Phillies?   Though with American as a hub there in PHL you would think they have a sponsorship deal in place with the Phils?  

makes sense… back in the day, you could track Indians charter flights - they were always assigned Continental 1901 for the year the team joined the Major Leagues.

 

 and I’ve sat at Newark long enough now that someone pulled the Cle/Lakefront flight from the terminal departure boards…

1 hour ago, buckeye1 said:

makes sense… back in the day, you could track Indians charter flights - they were always assigned Continental 1901 for the year the team joined the Major Leagues.

 

 and I’ve sat at Newark long enough now that someone pulled the Cle/Lakefront flight from the terminal departure boards…

Too bad you couldn't hop on it.   Probably a deadhead flight 

Not strictly BKL, but Ultimate Jet/Ultimate Air Shuttle filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy this month:

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/cleveland/news/2023/10/16/ultimate-jet-operating-while-in-bankruptcy-court.html

Anybody know when the report(s) on economic impact of having/closing Burke will be completed? I feel like it's been going on a very long time.

burke update comi....   not so fast my friend...  

 

https://signalcleveland.org/cleveland-nearing-decision-on-whether-to-close-burke-lakefront-airport/

Some news on the “close Burke” discussion:

 

https://signalcleveland.org/faa-official-met-with-cleveland-mayor-justin-bibb-to-discuss-burke-lakefront-airport-closure/

 

FAA official met with Cleveland  Mayor Justin Bibb to discuss Burke Lakefront Airport closure

The federal agency’s associate administrator of airports, Shannetta R. Griffin, who oversees national airport planning, met with Bibb and Cleveland’s airport director on May 8 at City Hall. The official left with copies of Cleveland’s studies about closing the airport. 
 

 

In a statement to Signal Cleveland, the FAA said, “Ms. Griffin attended an informational meeting with the mayor and airport officials. The FAA did not make any commitments or decisions at this meeting.” 

…

As Signal Cleveland first reported this week, Cleveland City Hall is preparing to announce its decision on the future of Burke Lakefront Airport. City officials planned to meet Monday afternoon to discuss when and how to roll out a decision, but the meeting was canceled because Jeffrey Epstein, City Hall’s chief of integrated development, was stuck in City Council’s daylong committee hearing. 

6 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

City officials planned to meet Monday afternoon to discuss when and how to roll out a decision, but the meeting was canceled because Jeffrey Epstein, City Hall’s chief of integrated development, was stuck in City Council’s daylong committee hearing. 

Unfortunate name on a guy stuck in an unfortunate city of Cleveland proceeding... 

If Burke can't be closed, I hope they look at maybe reconfiguring it so that some of the land next to North Coast Harbor can be freed up for development.

Is this possible?  No clue.

There is a lot more land there now than when Burke was opened, and maybe the runways do not need to be so long.  

Or at least dust off some variation of Geis' plan from over a decade ago (Jesus...) to build on city owned land on the Southwestern edge of Burke.

 

https://www.cleveland.com/business/2012/08/geis_cos_float_plan_for_lakefr.html

Good article from Crains about closing Burke. No new information, but mirrors my opinions pretty well. 

 

https://www.crainscleveland.com/commentary/crains-editorial-be-bold-about-burke

Meanwhile, in the forward-thinking world, commercial cargo drones are about to be the future.  The City of Clevleand should be seeding money to launch a pilot project at their under-utilized BKL.   

 

https://www.business-standard.com/world-news/china-successfully-tests-new-highpayload-lowcost-commercial-cargo-drone-124061400618_1.html

On 6/14/2024 at 1:51 PM, Cleburger said:

Meanwhile, in the forward-thinking world, commercial cargo drones are about to be the future.  The City of Clevleand should be seeding money to launch a pilot project at their under-utilized BKL.   

 

https://www.business-standard.com/world-news/china-successfully-tests-new-highpayload-lowcost-commercial-cargo-drone-124061400618_1.html

 

Hopefully Burke can get in on this:

https://investors.archer.com/news/news-details/2024/Archer-Announces-Landmark-Infrastructure-Deal-With-Signature-Aviation-Gains-Access-to-Largest-Network-of-Private-Aviation-Terminals-in-the-World/default.aspx

 

Signature Aviation operates at Burke, and it's obviously close to downtown and under-utilized.  I agree the city should be seeking opportunities like this for Burke, even if they were planning to close it in the future.

 

Archer Aviation also announced a Space Act Agreement with NASA earlier this year to work together on EVTOL, which would be another synergy for trialing this in Cleveland (though I'm not sure Glenn is getting any work from this SAA).

https://news.archer.com/archer-aviation-and-nasa-sign-space-act-agreement-to-collaborate-on-mission-critical-evtol-aircraft-technologies

10 minutes ago, acd said:

 

 

 

(though I'm not sure Glenn is getting any work from this SAA).

 

May not get any work from this specific contract but I do know there’s groups at Glen working on several different eVTOL applications and have been for the last few years 

This may be a dumb question because I'm somewhat uninformed, but why couldn't County theoretically be reconfigured to accommodate all flights that Burke currently does? It looks like there's plenty room on the current parcel if you just adjust the angle of the runway. Compare the two images below.

 

 

Do any flights at Burke use the full length of the runway?

1 hour ago, LibertyBlvd said:

Do any flights at Burke use the full length of the runway?

When sports teams come in on chartered 737s, A320's and 757s, yes they use a good chunk.  

4 hours ago, LlamaLawyer said:

This may be a dumb question because I'm somewhat uninformed, but why couldn't County theoretically be reconfigured to accommodate all flights that Burke currently does? It looks like there's plenty room on the current parcel if you just adjust the angle of the runway. Compare the two images below.

 

 

am ignorant to airport dealings too. but it seems like youre basically proposing tearing up the old runway and completely building a new one. seems like a major project 

7 hours ago, Whipjacka said:

am ignorant to airport dealings too. but it seems like youre basically proposing tearing up the old runway and completely building a new one. seems like a major project 

Also one that would be VEHEMENTLY opposed by the area Nimbys.   An effort to extend the existing runway was squashed maybe 10 years ago.   Realigning the runway and putting flight paths directly over homes that were not affected before is a prescription for a suburban Karen riot of epic proportions. 

I agree Nimbys are to be expected. The first question that aught to be answered, and hopefully is by the upcoming report, is how many flights currently at Burke need the last 10% of runway length, and therefore couldn't be diverted to Cuyahoga County and would need to go Hopkins absent major renovations at another airport? If it's only a few a month it's a nothingburger, if it's many per day then we'd probably have to do something about it. 

 

--

 

Another proposal that has been thrown around here for extending the runway is basically to add a dogleg to Richmond and extend the runway in that direction. That could get you the additional 600-700' matching Burke without altering the flight path or tearing out the old runway. I'm sure it would still be opposed by Nimbys because literally everything is with airports, it's basically the origin of the term. 

 

Edit: from the previous Master plan beaten back by Nimbys. 

 

Thanks, all. That makes sense. 

 

What I'm gathering is that there's no fundamental logistical reason the airport couldn't be improved to substitute Burke; it's just a neighborhood outrage problem. Which, to be fair, I understand more than most NIMBY issues, because living right by an airport is a pain.

15 hours ago, Cleburger said:

When sports teams come in on chartered 737s, A320's and 757s, yes they use a good chunk.  

Well, they would just have to use our primary airport which is what they have to do when flying to any other city.

 

Edited June 29, 2024Jun 29 by LibertyBlvd

2 hours ago, LlamaLawyer said:

. . .  because living right by an airport is a pain.

 

All the more reason to have fewer airports and push development out, away from those airports.

City announces north coast harbor update for August 5th

 

”

Cleveland's North Coast Lakefront Future Forum.

Join Mayor Bibb and Team for a Festive Update

 

Mayor Bibb and the North Coast team will share the latest updates on the North Coast Connector and the North Coast Master Plan.

 

Following the moderated discussion, share your ideas and reactions about the preliminary plans through interactive exhibits.

 

Also learn about the new North Coast Waterfront Development Authority and

record your Lake Erie memories while enjoying lake views, food and good times.”

Various companies are developing electric and hydrogen "air taxi" vehicles with capacities ranging from 4 to 19 passengers.  I wonder if there is a market for these at Burke.  They don't need long runways or large terminals.  Both Delta and United have issued letters of intent to buy these taxis.  One proposal is Manhattan to JFK in 7 minutes for $195. 

 

I was thinking more about the old short haul routes - like CLE or BKL to DET, ERI, BUF, CMH, LUK, IND, etc.  Burke's footprint could be greatly reduced for these operations - I'm guessing half or more of the 450 acres could be sold for development while still retaining a useful transport capacity downtown.  The late, lamented Ultimate Air Shuttle (thanks, Covid) proved there is a valid market for hassle-free, short-haul aviation in Cleveland; it would be a real economic boost to get it back.  

3 hours ago, Dougal said:

Various companies are developing electric and hydrogen "air taxi" vehicles with capacities ranging from 4 to 19 passengers.  I wonder if there is a market for these at Burke.  They don't need long runways or large terminals.  Both Delta and United have issued letters of intent to buy these taxis.  One proposal is Manhattan to JFK in 7 minutes for $195. 

 

I was thinking more about the old short haul routes - like CLE or BKL to DET, ERI, BUF, CMH, LUK, IND, etc.  Burke's footprint could be greatly reduced for these operations - I'm guessing half or more of the 450 acres could be sold for development while still retaining a useful transport capacity downtown.  The late, lamented Ultimate Air Shuttle (thanks, Covid) proved there is a valid market for hassle-free, short-haul aviation in Cleveland; it would be a real economic boost to get it back.  

I mentioned these several times upthread.     

 

It would take some forward thinking by Bibb and company, but they should be meeting with these startups and offering free land to build hanger spaces etc if they base out of Cleveland.    We are in a great geographic position to test these taxis and bring them to market, with short hops to Detroit, Toledo, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Toronto, etc.   

Lessons from Toronto in how to turn a close-in (about 6 miles north of downtown) airport into a huge mixed development.  They are expecting 55,000 residents 30 years from now.

 

https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/the-22-billion-plan-to-turn-a-defunct-airport-into-a-small-city-a73ca6ab?mod=Searchresults_pos1&page=1

When are we supposed to get that report on closing Burke? I thought that was supposed to be soon if not already. 

Oh, I think we all know the answer that that one.

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.