8 hours ago, Cleveland Trust said:

The most valuable land in Cleveland:

1) a stadium used 10 days per year

2) piles of limestone

3) an airport used mostly for flight lessons

4) commercial train tracks for trains that could easily be rerouted

 

I agree that the lakefront is isolated but I think we need to undo the mistakes of the past at some point. To me the lakefront is like the Cavaliers having LeBron James and making him sit on the bench. Our greatest asset that we could build upon is being held hostage by limited use infrastructure.

 

I think when the stadium becomes obsolete and must be torn down, that siting issue may be resolved then.  But you are correct, just looking at cold economics, NFL-only venues are always a financial loser for pretty much every stakeholder involved.  But just don't mention that on game day.

 

But it's not just the stadium, we've got the Port and several active industrial uses that obviously can't be moved.  As with Burke, I think as with any airport closure, you've got regulatory and environmental hurdles to jump through.  This isn't to say it can't be done, it's just that doing so could literally take decades.  And with all the vacant lots in Cleveland, there is no real purpose in doing that, unless you've got a major singular employer like an Amazon or an Under Armour, that needs a huge blank slate and won't mind the environmental cleanup.

 

Besides, if we want waterfront housing and mixed use, The Flats is on its third or fourth incarnation, and still has a bit of industrial grittiness that gives it some authenticity.  That was never quite my scene, but the housing there commands quite a premium.

2 hours ago, MyTwoSense said:

Why is closing Burke so important considering, when there is still a lot of UNDEVELOPED land south of Marginal/Lakeside??

If Burke is closed, what can be built on it?

What can be built without major investment, considering the history of the airport land?

The number of flights must then be absorbed into Hopkins.  Although Hopkins, at the current time, isn't operating at capacity, these smaller jets do have affects on commercial flights and operations.

No "Fake/Faux neighborhood names"

 

Close muni and the covered lot, yes.

Close the FBI Office and relocate, yes

Close the PD Building and relocated in office Bldg. with ground level integrations.

Relocated the County Office

Relocate Cleveland Water works

Relocated WKYC.  Put the TV and PD in a "international media center building"

Extend train to east 55th.

 

That entire area from north of Lakeside to St. Clair and from 9th to 18th is ripe for residential development.

 

 

By closing Burke you remove the height cap on any potential project north of downtown. As a bonus you get acres of land that Burke sits on for future development. 

 

Scarcity of lakefront property makes it valuable in the way that other undeveloped land isn’t: https://www.cityscapeglobal.com/en/news/2019/Why-investors.html

 

29 minutes ago, PaxtonMarley said:

 

I think when the stadium becomes obsolete and must be torn down, that siting issue may be resolved then.  But you are correct, just looking at cold economics, NFL-only venues are always a financial loser for pretty much every stakeholder involved.  But just don't mention that on game day.

 

But it's not just the stadium, we've got the Port and several active industrial uses that obviously can't be moved.  As with Burke, I think as with any airport closure, you've got regulatory and environmental hurdles to jump through.  This isn't to say it can't be done, it's just that doing so could literally take decades.  And with all the vacant lots in Cleveland, there is no real purpose in doing that, unless you've got a major singular employer like an Amazon or an Under Armour, that needs a huge blank slate and won't mind the environmental cleanup.

 

Besides, if we want waterfront housing and mixed use, The Flats is on its third or fourth incarnation, and still has a bit of industrial grittiness that gives it some authenticity.  That was never quite my scene, but the housing there commands quite a premium.

I think developers can work around the Port and the soon to be replaced stadium. Burke’s present flightpath, however, truncates all future developments. 

Speaking of new development at or around NCH:

 

https://fox8.com/2019/07/12/new-development-plans-for-north-coast-harbor-area/

 

 

Of course, this isn't our first lakefront redevelopment rodeo.  We will see how it pans out.

 

12 hours ago, Cleveland Trust said:

By closing Burke you remove the height cap on any potential project north of downtown. As a bonus you get acres of land that Burke sits on for future development. 

 

Scarcity of lakefront property makes it valuable in the way that other undeveloped land isn’t: https://www.cityscapeglobal.com/en/news/2019/Why-investors.html

 

What are the affects of closing burke?

Can you even building on that acre?

Future development?  So you buy parcels of land, so just sit on them?

That link has no context on Burke.  As they are different types of lakefront property.

 

Saying, "close burke and develop it" does not work and is not realistic.  There are so many variables.

 

12 hours ago, Cleveland Trust said:

I think developers can work around the Port and the soon to be replaced stadium. Burke’s present flightpath, however, truncates all future developments. 

Any developer can work in any place, but at what cost?  Will that cost outweigh the developers ROI?  How do those cost affect what is to be developed?  WHO pays for the costs in the end?

11 hours ago, PaxtonMarley said:

Speaking of new development at or around NCH:

 

https://fox8.com/2019/07/12/new-development-plans-for-north-coast-harbor-area/

 

 

I wonder why these are not step up units.  If I'm buying on the Lake, a selling feature, each unit should have a lake view.  Extending the Convention Center north and adding hotel would be a plus for the area.

2 hours ago, MyTwoSense said:

What are the affects of closing burke?

Can you even building on that acre?

Future development?  So you buy parcels of land, so just sit on them?

That link has no context on Burke.  As they are different types of lakefront property.

 

Saying, "close burke and develop it" does not work and is not realistic.  There are so many variables.

 

You’re probably right.

2 hours ago, MyTwoSense said:

Any developer can work in any place, but at what cost?  Will that cost outweigh the developers ROI?  How do those cost affect what is to be developed?  WHO pays for the costs in the end?

Just meant that I don’t support some of the other lakefront plans that moved the port to Dyke 14. That huge public cost could be avoided. 

Does anyone know if it’s true that the city-owned 447 acre Burke Lakefront Airport is losing $2.1 million per year? Would it be cheaper to shift flights to the mothballed Concourse D at Hopkins? 

Edited July 14, 20195 yr by Cleveland Trust
Spelling

I’ve heard the city could save $7 million per year just by shuttering Burke and shifting to Hopkins. Not sure if this is true. Does anybody know if that sounds about right? Would have been nice if $70 million could have been saved in the last decade by merging two underused airports.

Edited July 14, 20195 yr by Cleveland Trust

1 hour ago, Cleveland Trust said:

I’ve heard the city could save $7 million per year just by shuttering Burke and shifting to Hopkins. Not sure if this is true. Does anybody know if that sounds about right? Would have been nice if $70 million could have been saved in the last decade by merging two underused airports.

I've always thought of myself as a person who thinks outside the box, so I've titled this post, "at what cost?"

 

I've never heard those figures used before.  What is your definition of "underused"?  Considering United Sabotaged Hopkins, "underused" is not accurate.  It's under performing!

 

The FAA, city, county and elected Federal officials would all have to be on the same page to close Burke.  How much does that cost - politically and financially? 

 

Even if the city saved 7 million, how much would it cost users of the airport? I know the Federal Government and the banking community are major users of the airport. What is the cost for businesses that ship product, to switch to Hopkins?  What is the cost to the Aviation businesses that call Burke home?  How does a move affect the total number employees, city and private, that work at the airport?

 

If a move was agreed upon, Internal and external changes will need to be made at Hopkins.  Where do you move these carriers?  You can't use D, as United owns the lease, until 2030.  They are paying to keep the space closed.  The airport would have to have master plan that shows cancelling the agreement and reopening the concourse would bring in more operating revenue and profit, per month, than what United pays, per month.  That sum is 1 million USD a month.  If operations move to Hopkins, what is the cost? 

 

Hopkins has not always run under capacity.  It was a very busy hub, now with LCC moving in, the airport traffic has improved.  If operations did move from Burke to Hopkins, it would become a delay prone airport.  

 

I will ask again, if Burke is closed, can anything be developed on the property?  Considering how it was created, is it safe to convert, at a bare minimum, park space?  I would guess the various environmental agencies would need to be involved. Meaning mo money, mo money, mo money to a consultant.   if it can be converted, what is built and programmed for this space?  Who pays for the maintenance of structures, staff and programming? What is the cost?  

 

Having just scratched the surface of cost, to close Burke and relocate operations,  $7 million a year would not be saved.  In the end we know consumers departing Hopkins and Cleveland tax payers will be responsible, for costs, but at what cost?

 

3 hours ago, MyTwoSense said:

I've always thought of myself as a person who thinks outside the box, so I've titled this post, "at what cost?"

 

I've never heard those figures used before.  What is your definition of "underused"?  Considering United Sabotaged Hopkins, "underused" is not accurate.  It's under performing!

 

The FAA, city, county and elected Federal officials would all have to be on the same page to close Burke.  How much does that cost - politically and financially? 

 

Even if the city saved 7 million, how much would it cost users of the airport? I know the Federal Government and the banking community are major users of the airport. What is the cost for businesses that ship product, to switch to Hopkins?  What is the cost to the Aviation businesses that call Burke home?  How does a move affect the total number employees, city and private, that work at the airport?

 

If a move was agreed upon, Internal and external changes will need to be made at Hopkins.  Where do you move these carriers?  You can't use D, as United owns the lease, until 2030.  They are paying to keep the space closed.  The airport would have to have master plan that shows cancelling the agreement and reopening the concourse would bring in more operating revenue and profit, per month, than what United pays, per month.  That sum is 1 million USD a month.  If operations move to Hopkins, what is the cost? 

 

Hopkins has not always run under capacity.  It was a very busy hub, now with LCC moving in, the airport traffic has improved.  If operations did move from Burke to Hopkins, it would become a delay prone airport.  

 

I will ask again, if Burke is closed, can anything be developed on the property?  Considering how it was created, is it safe to convert, at a bare minimum, park space?  I would guess the various environmental agencies would need to be involved. Meaning mo money, mo money, mo money to a consultant.   if it can be converted, what is built and programmed for this space?  Who pays for the maintenance of structures, staff and programming? What is the cost?  

 

Having just scratched the surface of cost, to close Burke and relocate operations,  $7 million a year would not be saved.  In the end we know consumers departing Hopkins and Cleveland tax payers will be responsible, for costs, but at what cost?

 

Trying to figure out what the benefit is and the cost. I’d hate to have a $7 million dollar drain on city coffers hold the lakefront hostage. 

4 minutes ago, Cleveland Trust said:

Trying to figure out what the benefit is and the cost. I’d hate to have a $7 million dollar drain on city coffers hold the lakefront hostage. 

A few bulletpoints on feasability of closing Burke

1) Hopkins and Burke had 500,000 flights in 2000, 187,000 in 2017. Underused.

2) Underused airports have closed: Cincinnati, Chicago

3) the Fed no longer processes checks through Burke, no daily flights 

4) Burke businesses would have to relocate to Hopkins or County airport

5) the property can be developed, two studies on soil done, one in 2002 and one more recently

6) financials from 2016 are online showing the $2-$3 million loss but I don’t know if that accounts for all money being spent at Burke. There is Federal money spent too.

7) they used to close Burke for a week for the Grand Prix.

 

Maybe you’re right. Maybe Burke’s yearly loss is good for Cleveland and that loss is offset by huge benefits that I don’t see. Maybe that direct flight to Cincinnati will become an economic engine. Maybe Burke will one day be the envy of the world. I don’t know. 

^Definitely a bean counting exercise. Who is to say that by shuttering Burke there wouldn’t need to be additional expenditures, infrastructure and otherwise, at other surrounding airports.  The unknown cost of companies and government offices that might leave downtown because of lack of access to Burke has to be weighed. Opportunity cost of future companies that may not come to Cleveland because of lack of easy access to downtown as well.  The biggest thing MTS was hinting at is the millions that will have to be spent in the future modifying the infrastructure at Burke to undo the airport. The land isn’t going to be an instant corporate park or mixed use facility. How much will it cost to get it ready for its next mission?  

  The better and much easier to answer would be ‘What can Burke do better to limit costs and increase revenues?’ If one is focused on bean counting. 

Edited July 14, 20195 yr by audidave

46 minutes ago, audidave said:

^Definitely a bean counting exercise. Who is to say that by shuttering Burke there wouldn’t need to be additional expenditures, infrastructure and otherwise, at other surrounding airports.  The unknown cost of companies and government offices that might leave downtown because of lack of access to Burke has to be weighed. Opportunity cost of future companies that may not come to Cleveland because of lack of easy access to downtown as well.  The biggest thing MTS was hinting at is the millions that will have to be spent in the future modifying the infrastructure at Burke to undo the airport. The land isn’t going to be an instant corporate park or mixed use facility. How much will it cost to get it ready for its next mission?  

  The better and much easier to answer would be ‘What can Burke do better to limit costs and increase revenues?’ If one is focused on bean counting. 

The 2002 study covers some of this: https://www.gcbl.org/files/resources/burkereport.pdf

 

There will be costs and risks to change things. Maybe losing $2 million a year is the best we can do. Maybe bigger piles of limestone on the most valuable land in Cleveland is the way forward. Maybe high rise lakefront condos, a public park, and an urban golf course are overrated.

Edited July 14, 20195 yr by Cleveland Trust

You do realize that the bulk of Burke is landfill and not suitable for high rises? The new UO visionaries always think that closing Burke means immediate expansion of downtown to the lake.

  Look at the example of Scranton Peninsula. A nice big swath of land next to downtown that could can finally be developed to its fullest.  With all that land available, the first developer wants to put an infill apartment complex in surrounded by a sea of parking. That is not what anyone had in mind. 

With likely building height restrictions due to unstable soil and need for additional shoring up plus the water tables being high, i can’t envision any thing taller than 10 stories and that is likely pushing it. 

   More likely what would happen is a retail complex with big box stores and hotels and yes apartment complexes probably 2-3 stories high. 

12 minutes ago, audidave said:

You do realize that the bulk of Burke is landfill and not suitable for high rises? The new UO visionaries always think that closing Burke means immediate expansion of downtown to the lake.

  Look at the example of Scranton Peninsula. A nice big swath of land next to downtown that could can finally be developed to its fullest.  With all that land available, the first developer wants to put an infill apartment complex in surrounded by a sea of parking. That is not what anyone had in mind. 

With likely building height restrictions due to unstable soil and need for additional shoring up plus the water tables being high, i can’t envision any thing taller than 10 stories and that is likely pushing it. 

   More likely what would happen is a retail complex with big box stores and hotels and yes apartment complexes probably 2-3 stories high. 

I do. The high rises would most likely sit north of downtown but can’t happen because of the Burke flight path. Burke itself is best used as a park/row houses built around extended Blue Line. The flight path is the real oppressor, not so much land use. It’s all in that study.

Edited July 14, 20195 yr by Cleveland Trust

42 minutes ago, Cleveland Trust said:

I do. The high rises would most likely sit north of downtown but can’t happen because of the Burke flight path. Burke itself is best used as a park/row houses built around extended Blue Line. The flight path is the real oppressor, not so much land use. It’s all in that study.

 

The Lord is testing me!

The closing of Burke is a topic that comes up at least on an annual basis on the forum if not more often.  The debate goes on for 2-3 pages and then disappears until the next go around.  Everybody has strong views on the subject.  Its use as parkland always seems to be a popular view.

 

I am hardly an expert but over the years people have indicated the following:  The FAA will not allow it or the approval process would be long and drawn out (again I don't know if this is true).  As noted above it is built on a landfill which limits what type of development can go in (which I guess favors the park people).  Building anything large could be very expensive given the land underneath and does that make sense when there is so much vacant land downtown that would cost less to build on.  Finally, you always hear that the land underneath is very toxic (again I have no idea what that means but make sense if the landfill includes dredging from the river) which would either be a regulatory nightmare to build on and at a minimum would increase development costs significantly

Plus, we have a Burke Lakefront Airport thread......

3 hours ago, MyTwoSense said:

 

The Lord is testing me!

You’re right! We need 3 airports in the county for a shrinking population operating at 1/3 capacity of 20 years ago, choking the lakefront, costing Clevelanders $2 million per year because meme.  Maybe if Amazon comes here we can do something.

Just now, Cleveland Trust said:

You’re right! We need 3 airports in the county for a shrinking population operating at 1/3 capacity of 20 years ago, choking the lakefront, costing Clevelanders $2 million per year because meme.  Maybe if Amazon comes here we can do something.

2 hours ago, KJP said:

Plus, we have a Burke Lakefront Airport thread......

Just commenting on some of the posts on this thread, not tied to an actual development. Sorry.

4 hours ago, Htsguy said:

The closing of Burke is a topic that comes up at least on an annual basis on the forum if not more often.  The debate goes on for 2-3 pages and then disappears until the next go around.  Everybody has strong views on the subject.  Its use as parkland always seems to be a popular view.

 

I am hardly an expert but over the years people have indicated the following:  The FAA will not allow it or the approval process would be long and drawn out (again I don't know if this is true).  As noted above it is built on a landfill which limits what type of development can go in (which I guess favors the park people).  Building anything large could be very expensive given the land underneath and does that make sense when there is so much vacant land downtown that would cost less to build on.  Finally, you always hear that the land underneath is very toxic (again I have no idea what that means but make sense if the landfill includes dredging from the river) which would either be a regulatory nightmare to build on and at a minimum would increase development costs significantly

It’s all in that report I posted above. A lot can be done. FAA does close underused airports, etc.

^I don't get people's obsession with closing Burke.  BKL is reliever to Hopkins and is important to the Cleveland economy. True, the Fed doesn't run checks through there every night. Check clearing is now done electronically. But a new big user is the Cleveland Clinic. They have 2 or 3 jets--painted in their colors--based at BKL and use it fly people into CLE when seconds count. Also, the county airport is a tiny little airport---so comments about "3 airports in the county...." are pointless unless you're talking about closing the County Airport.  BKL can handle 737s, A321, B757s, etc.  The county airport couldn't handle any of those.  And while Hopkins could---see sentence #2 above---BKL is a reliever for Hopkins.

 

3 minutes ago, Pugu said:

^I don't get people's obsession with closing Burke.  BKL is reliever to Hopkins and is important to the Cleveland economy. True, the Fed doesn't run checks through there every night. Check clearing is now done electronically. But a new big user is the Cleveland Clinic. They have 2 or 3 jets--painted in their colors--based at BKL and use it fly people into CLE when seconds count. Also, the county airport is a tiny little airport---so comments about "3 airports in the county...." are pointless unless you're talking about closing the County Airport.  BKL can handle 737s, A321, B757s, etc.  The county airport couldn't handle any of those.  And while Hopkins could---see sentence #2 above---BKL is a reliever for Hopkins.

 

Exactly why many points in my post was ignored.

 

I touched on how the closing of Burke would affect tenants of airport, and employees.

 

Quote

Even if the city saved 7 million, how much would it cost users of the airport? I know the Federal Government and the banking community are major users of the airport. What is the cost for businesses that ship product, to switch to Hopkins?  What is the cost to the Aviation businesses that call Burke home?  How does a move affect the total number employees, city and private, that work at the airport?

 

7 minutes ago, Pugu said:

^I don't get people's obsession with closing Burke.  BKL is reliever to Hopkins and is important to the Cleveland economy. True, the Fed doesn't run checks through there every night. Check clearing is now done electronically. But a new big user is the Cleveland Clinic. They have 2 or 3 jets--painted in their colors--based at BKL and use it fly people into CLE when seconds count. Also, the county airport is a tiny little airport---so comments about "3 airports in the county...." are pointless unless you're talking about closing the County Airport.  BKL can handle 737s, A321, B757s, etc.  The county airport couldn't handle any of those.  And while Hopkins could---see sentence #2 above---BKL is a reliever for Hopkins.

 

This is all addressed in the above report. What if Burke is a net loss for the city? Hopkins doesn’t need reliever, it is way under capacity. 

1 minute ago, Cleveland Trust said:

....Hopkins doesn’t need reliever, it is way under capacity. 

 

ummmmm....just because it is under capacity, that does not not mean an incident could not occur there....airports or runways are closed ALL THE TIME due to MANY external factors, hence the need for relievers.

1 minute ago, MyTwoSense said:

Exactly why many points in my post was ignored.

 

I touched on how the closing of Burke would affect tenants of airport, and employees.

 

 

What if those jobs could be shifted—not lost—in the city’s best interests so that everyone is happy? Are we expecting a miracle financial turnaround from Burke or should we make moves to cut loses? I see projected losses into the next decade close to $35 million or more, 60% drop in Burke use over that last decade. When do we begin to change that?

1 minute ago, Pugu said:

 

ummmmm....just because it is under capacity, that does not not mean an incident could not occur there....airports or runways are closed ALL THE TIME due to MANY external factors, hence the need for relievers.

Like what? Examples?

3 minutes ago, Cleveland Trust said:

This is all addressed in the above report. What if Burke is a net loss for the city? Hopkins doesn’t need reliever, it is way under capacity. 

A feasibility report that is no longer accurate.  The airport direct has called for a new Master Plan for the aviation system.  

 

You've gone from writing the airport was "under used" to now saying "under capacity".  The airport industry changes,  with Alaska creating possible Focus City, United adding flights on profitable routes, American adding seats and flights and Frontier continuing to build, things can change.  

 

How can you think Burke is a net loss, without looking or taking in the considerations I touched upon?

 

This "discussion" is ridiculous and all associated posts should be deleted!

Quote

by Cleveland Trust:    "Like what? Examples?"



 

^Really?  Okay. Here are about 1,000-2,000 examples---and this doesn't even include things in Cleveland like the plane that recently skidded off the runway on ice.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercial_aircraft

Edited July 14, 20195 yr by Pugu

4 minutes ago, Cleveland Trust said:

What if those jobs could be shifted—not lost—in the city’s best interests so that everyone is happy? Are we expecting a miracle financial turnaround from Burke or should we make moves to cut loses? I see projected losses into the next decade close to $35 million or more, 60% drop in Burke use over that last decade. When do we begin to change that?

 

Just now, MyTwoSense said:

A feasibility report that is no longer accurate.  The airport direct has called for a new Master Plan for the aviation system.  

 

You've gone from writing the airport was "under used" to now saying "under capacity".  The airport industry changes,  with Alaska creating possible Focus City, United adding flights on profitable routes, American adding seats and flights and Frontier continuing to build, things can change.  

 

How can you think Burke is a net loss, without looking or taking in the considerations I touched upon?

 

This "discussion" is ridiculous and all associated posts should be deleted!

Do you have numbers to compare? What are the costs?

2 minutes ago, Pugu said:

^Really?  Okay. Here are about 1,000-2,000 examples---and this doesn't even include things in Cleveland like the plane that recently skidded off the runway on ice.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercial_aircraft

Not relevant. Sorry. I am aware planes crash. 

Edited July 14, 20195 yr by Cleveland Trust

3 minutes ago, Cleveland Trust said:

 

Do you have numbers to compare? What are the costs?

You wrote a $7M USD number.  You provide CURRENT data and in the appropriate forum.

1 minute ago, Cleveland Trust said:

Not relevant. Sorry. I am aware planes crash. 

 

Ummm....if you're saying that aircraft crashes are not relevant to temporary closure of an airport, I think you've demonstrated your understanding of aviation issues, which explains your arguments for closing Burke.

1 minute ago, Pugu said:

 

Ummm....if you're saying that aircraft crashes are not relevant to temporary closure of an airport, I think you've demonstrated your understanding of aviation issues, which explains your arguments for closing Burke.

Okay

4 minutes ago, MyTwoSense said:

You wrote a $7M USD number.  You provide CURRENT data and in the appropriate forum.

Looking for it. You got any? Sorry for commenting on posts in this forum.

Lets stop kidding ourselves that Hopkins needs relief.  CLE isn't LAX, SFO, ORD, ATL, MIA.  I agree it's nice to have, but it's NOT NEEDED.   If BKL was shut down tomorrow the Cleveland Clinic would quickly redirect its flights to Hopkins or Richmond Heights (helicopter transfers for urgent cases), flights schools could be easily relocated, and private users would quickly adjust.  And a bona fide financial argument for keeping BKL doesn't exist. 

 

So we can make hypothetical arguments to support the FAA, the city, the county and all of the other BKL defenders, but Cleveland's lakefront is being held captive by a shrinking minority and, from what I can tell, a growing majority would like to take it back.   

9 minutes ago, MyTwoSense said:

You wrote a $7M USD number.  You provide CURRENT data and in the appropriate forum.

One last thing. The $35 million is based on projected losses from 2016. There are hidden costs attached the bring it to double that. I can’t find confirmation however. 

6 minutes ago, jbdad2 said:

Lets stop kidding ourselves that Hopkins needs relief.  CLE isn't LAX, SFO, ORD, ATL, MIA.  I agree it's nice to have, but it's NOT NEEDED.   If BKL was shut down tomorrow the Cleveland Clinic would quickly redirect its flights to Hopkins or Richmond Heights (helicopter transfers for urgent cases), flights schools could be easily relocated, and private users would quickly adjust.  And a bona fide financial argument for keeping BKL doesn't exist. 

 

So we can make hypothetical arguments to support the FAA, the city, the county and all of the other BKL defenders, but Cleveland's lakefront is being held captive by a shrinking minority and, from what I can tell, a growing majority would like to take it back.   

 

Not only CLE, but, actually, ALL airports need relief.

 

"growing majority would like to take it back. "  You mean restoring the Municipal Dump?  That's what was there before.  If you want to make BKL better utilized, advocate for closure of a weaker asset---the county airport. But don't try to hurt or reduce the city by eliminating something that gives it an economic advantage over competitors.

 

11 minutes ago, jbdad2 said:

Lets stop kidding ourselves that Hopkins needs relief.  CLE isn't LAX, SFO, ORD, ATL, MIA.  I agree it's nice to have, but it's NOT NEEDED.   If BKL was shut down tomorrow the Cleveland Clinic would quickly redirect its flights to Hopkins or Richmond Heights (helicopter transfers for urgent cases), flights schools could be easily relocated, and private users would quickly adjust.  And a bona fide financial argument for keeping BKL doesn't exist. 

 

So we can make hypothetical arguments to support the FAA, the city, the county and all of the other BKL defenders, but Cleveland's lakefront is being held captive by a shrinking minority and, from what I can tell, a growing majority would like to take it back.   

1. Who is comparing our Airport operations to other regions?
2. Burke is "not needed", determined by who and using factors?
3. You write moving things would be done easily?  What is your definition of "ease" in relation to a move, of several moving parts, on this scale?
4. Private users would adjust, at what cost and who pays for that cost?

5. The FAA has the final say as to an airport being deactivated, period.  That is not a hypothetical.

You write the lakefront is being held captive and people would like to take it back.  Held hostage by whom? 

 

When exactly, have Clevelanders had access to the lake, within the exact boundaries of Burke?  I'm 53, Burke was operating 20 years prior to my birth.  It was NEVER a reliever airport. It was planned as an airport to service the business community. There are pictures on this very forum of a (burnt) orange, browns helmet colored Cuyahoga river and opening into Lake Erie.  Please be specific and tell us in exact terms, what was taken away, that needs to be, by your own words, taken back? 

 

I ask these specific questions because I want to better understand your point of view.

 

^"It was NEVER a reliever airport."  Burke was not created to be a reliever---but was developed to be an airport in its own right. But, in terms of an integrated national air system, BKL is an FAA-designated reliever for Hopkins. 

Edited July 14, 20195 yr by Pugu

1.Relief airports from CLE include CAK <50 miles, and DTW, CMH and Pit <125 miles.

 

2. There is no economic advantage.

 

3. Yes, I do mean 'restoring the Municipal Dump' for better use.  Perhaps you're aware that landfills are becoming some of largest and most popular parks in cities around the world, a trend in the US dating back to the late 1800s when Grant, Lincoln and Burnham Parks in Chicago were all created.  If BKL soil tests unsafe then perhasp an airport is the best use, but rhetorical health concerns won't fly much longer.

   

8 minutes ago, jbdad2 said:

1.Relief airports from CLE include CAK <50 miles, and DTW, CMH and Pit <125 miles.   

 

The designated relief airports for Hopkins are Burke, Cuyahoga County, Medina, Lost Nation, and Lorain County.  The most capable in terms of runway capacity and trained emergency services of all of those is BKL.

1 hour ago, Pugu said:

 

Not only CLE, but, actually, ALL airports need relief.

 

"growing majority would like to take it back. "  You mean restoring the Municipal Dump?  That's what was there before.  If you want to make BKL better utilized, advocate for closure of a weaker asset---the county airport. But don't try to hurt or reduce the city by eliminating something that gives it an economic advantage over competitors.

 

 

58 minutes ago, MyTwoSense said:

1. Who is comparing our Airport operations to other regions?
2. Burke is "not needed", determined by who and using factors?
3. You write moving things would be done easily?  What is your definition of "ease" in relation to a move, of several moving parts, on this scale?
4. Private users would adjust, at what cost and who pays for that cost?

5. The FAA has the final say as to an airport being deactivated, period.  That is not a hypothetical.

You write the lakefront is being held captive and people would like to take it back.  Held hostage by whom? 

 

When exactly, have Clevelanders had access to the lake, within the exact boundaries of Burke?  I'm 53, Burke was operating 20 years prior to my birth.  It was NEVER a reliever airport. It was planned as an airport to service the business community. There are pictures on this very forum of a (burnt) orange, browns helmet colored Cuyahoga river and opening into Lake Erie.  Please be specific and tell us in exact terms, what was taken away, that needs to be, by your own words, taken back? 

 

I ask these specific questions because I want to better understand your point of view.

 

1) Cleveland is failing compared to other cities. We are losing population while other cities are growing. We can agree this is a problem.

2) almost 500,000 flights in 2000, 187,000 flights in 2017, 3 airports, city loses $2 million at Burke with revenues dropping. We can agree that this is a problem, at least for the city. What is the benefit from losing this public money and for who? 

3) incentivize moves to cut future costs. 

4) users would move with services

5) the FAA does close airports if they are not needed. There is a lengthy process and we will need Congressmen on down on the same page. It may be a waste of time to even try.

  

Again, the problem is that the flight path of Burke limits any development north of Route 2. Not that we would instantly develop the land Burke sits on but the land north of downtown would have less restrictions on it and become more attractive to developers. Who wants to live in a condo next to a runway when planes are most at risk of crashing? Even if Burke was left as a nature preserve—btw it is half the size of Central Park in NYC—we would still make the lakefront more useable by just closing it.  Hopkins seems capable of handling at least double the traffic that it is now so why not cut costs as we shrink and try to engineer a comeback. Part of that comeback means making Cleveland a place people want to live. We have been doing something wrong, the status quo will be our demise.

 

 

Edited July 14, 20195 yr by Cleveland Trust

Some convincing arguments. 

I feel like adding an attraction like Navy Pier in Chicago on a closed BKL would be a nice way to reuse the land. Adds activity over there and becomes a destination.