7 minutes ago, nokoeeee said:

Is this a way for the Haslams to make the general public think that a new stadium is a better idea than a deep rebuild of the old stadium?

 

I thought that might be a possibility. Of course, anything is possible until contracts have been signed.

The Haslams were considering the post office site.  I believe the site to the north of the post office referred to by @Ethan was considered for the new stadium by Mayor White, however, the lakefront site was chosen instead since the infrastructure was already in place and it could be built more quickly and cheaper.

 

Edited April 17, 20232 yr by LibertyBlvd

Hard to see the browns playing in Columbus for 3 years vs just playing at the HOF I’d assume players and staff would prefer that

You’d also think they’d rather keep the old stadium while they build a new one else where just to keep the income for the city for the estimated 3 years

28 minutes ago, GREGinPARMA said:

Great article as always, Ken. But yawnnnn. Without a roof, those restaurants will suffer big time. 10 times a year that thing will continue to be used. I hope whoever ultimately decides to live down there enjoys a massive, empty stadium in their neghborhood.

I hate the investment in Berea for this reason as well.  Move all the offices and training facilities downtown.  If tax dollars are going into the stadium, then all the payroll taxes for the team should go to the city and the employees can dine and work in the new neighborhood on the lakefront!  

34 minutes ago, GREGinPARMA said:

Great article as always, Ken. But yawnnnn. Without a roof, those restaurants will suffer big time. 10 times a year that thing will continue to be used. I hope whoever ultimately decides to live down there enjoys a massive, empty stadium in their neighborhood.

 

Solution for both:

 

I see we've reached the "County Courthouse" phase of the project where the renovation costs are so bloated that people go, "If we're going to spend $1 billion on renovation, why not just spend $2 billion on a new stadium!", like those two numbers are interchangeable.

11 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

The Haslams were considering the post office site.  I believe the site to the north of post office referred to by @Ethan was considered for the new stadium by Mayor White, however, the lakefront site was chosen instead since the infrastructure was already in place.

 

Yeah, it looks like you're right. 

 

https://www.cleveland.com/naymik/2012/09/art_modell_gateway_stadium.html

 

 

I also found this article by @KJPsaying that site was selected for a USL stadium, did that fall through? I assume so since I haven't heard anything in a while, in which case I'd like to see Brown's Stadium here. 

 

https://neo-trans.blogspot.com/2019/03/usl-cleveland-soccer-stadium-site-chosen.html?m=1

There is not currently, and never will be, the political will or desire to spend in excess of 2 billion dollars for a domed stadium in Cleveland. There is going to be enough squawking about a 1 billion dollar re-build.

15 minutes ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

Hard to see the browns playing in Columbus for 3 years vs just playing at the HOF I’d assume players and staff would prefer that

You’d also think they’d rather keep the old stadium while they build a new one else where just to keep the income for the city for the estimated 3 years

 

The HoF stadium has only 23,000 seats. I think the Browns would rather play Progressive Field.

6 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

The HoF stadium has only 23,000 seats. I think the Browns would rather play Progressive Field.

I was just going to post that Akron stadium would probably be a better choice than HOF as it is closer and seats a bit more (25,000) with 5,000 more standing room.  Progressive Field might be an interesting but still not a perfect choice when compared to Ohio Field (funny sight lines, still limited capacity and the field would be destroyed each year).  Also the usual issues with over lapping seasons which can be overcome but still problematic.

Edited April 17, 20232 yr by Htsguy

I vague remember hearing that Jacobs Field/Progressive FIeld was designed to accommodate football.  But I would not want to see that happen.

8 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

The HoF stadium has only 23,000 seats. I think the Browns would rather play Progressive Field.

Can the horseshoe really support two major sports teams playing back to back through different broadcast networks and different leagues requiring different set ups? I’d imagine that’d be a huge undertaking. And if the other option is the lower.com stadium even as you said it only seats a few over 20k… 

8 minutes ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

Can the horseshoe really support two major sports teams playing back to back through different broadcast networks and different leagues requiring different set ups? I’d imagine that’d be a huge undertaking. And if the other option is the lower.com stadium even as you said it only seats a few over 20k… 

The Vikings and University of Minnesota shared the Metrodome for years.

8 minutes ago, Htsguy said:

The Vikings and University of Minnesota shared the Metrodome for years.

https://syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/1074426-minnesota-vikings-and-university-of-minnesota-strike-tentative-stadium-deal.amp.html
touché, and at the cost of 1.7 mil a night at times. Also interesting note they were interested in matching the # seats to the # of season ticket holders 
 

 

ended up landing in a 3mil/season for 4 seasons deal that also included revenue sharing hm imagine that city of Cleveland revenue sharing for use of land for the use of nfl games  

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2013/05/08/minnesota-vikings-gophers-tcf-bank-stadium-minneapolis-metrodome/2145447/

Edited April 17, 20232 yr by BoomerangCleRes

Might as well pump an extra $100 million to CSU to start a D-1 football program. So we can use it 14 days a year……..

WKYC has picked up @KJP’s story.

 

https://www.wkyc.com/article/sports/nfl/browns/plans-to-rebuild-cleveland-browns-stadium-announced-next-week/95-ccaafc21-0421-4044-a58f-44a19a5996f8 

 

Well done, sir!

I also don’t really get the initial grumbling reactions here. I didn’t think we were ever going to get a dome. The financial realities and political hurdles are just too arduous for this city’s present time and place. If everything detailed in the article comes to fruition, we will finally have the ever elusive physical connection to the lakefront, the blvd shoreway, a drastic reduction in surface lots, and a ton of new development including (potentially) a couple new high rises. AND a completely renovated stadium that will be completely unrecognizable at roughly half the price tag. To imagine that all of this could actually happen by the end of the decade is nothing short of very exciting from where I’m sitting. 

10 minutes ago, CCC said:

I also don’t really get the initial grumbling reactions here. I didn’t think we were ever going to get a dome. The financial realities and political hurdles are just too arduous for this city’s present time and place. If everything detailed in the article comes to fruition, we will finally have the ever elusive physical connection to the lakefront, the blvd shoreway, a drastic reduction in surface lots, and a ton of new development including (potentially) a couple new high rises. AND a completely renovated stadium that will be completely unrecognizable at roughly half the price tag. To imagine that all of this could actually happen by the end of the decade is nothing short of very exciting from where I’m sitting. 

Because the only way us Browns fans can experience what it's like to be at a super bowl is if Cleveland hosted one for two other teams... 

Jokes aside, totally agree. A dome is worthless unless Jimmy is paying for it all.

Ive always said if a renovation hit above a Billion bucks I think it would make some sense to just build new. 750 million or so is the sweet spot for me. But this will also depend on how dramatic a renovation/rebuild will this really be, If it's flashy enough then it will work from a public PR point of view. Also that's just the stadium price tag the mix use looks to be another Billion or so too, will probably be phased over many many years if I had to guess.

2 hours ago, MuRrAy HiLL said:

 

Solution for both:

 

Looks like somebody played soccer at CSU lol

So wait. Renovation of the stadium in its current location, in a way that will lead to the construction of a land-bridge and development of the waterfront is on the table. And the renovation would cost $1 billion. But the Haslams want to build a new stadium somewhere else and it could cost $3 Billion. If those are actually the options, I applaud Bibb for pushing to keep it where it is. $2 billion is so much money. The entire ARPA fund Cleveland got was $450 million. So we're talking about saving 4 ARPAs worth of money by keeping the stadium where it is. That seems like a no-brainer to me. The only real downside is the lack of a dome which means the stadium will continue to get used about 13 times a year instead of, say, 20 times a year like a domed stadium would. And it means Haslam doesn't get his one superbowl that he might not get anyway.

23 minutes ago, 646empire said:

Ive always said if a renovation hit above a Billion bucks I think it would make some sense to just build new. 750 million or so is the sweet spot for me. But this will also depend on how dramatic a renovation/rebuild will this really be, If it's flashy enough then it will work from a public PR point of view. Also that's just the stadium price tag the mix use looks to be another Billion or so too, will probably be phased over many many years if I had to guess.

Agreed, which is why I'm suspicious of these renovation costs. I think @nokoeeeeand @Mendomight have it right, the numbers seem like they might be artificially inflated to sway public opinion towards building new. 

 

Also, does anyone know what the Browns are currently paying to lease the stadium? In particular how many years it will take to pay off the stadium build? (Or has taken, whatever the case may be). If they renovate and re-lease, how many years will it take the city to pay off the renovation? 

 

8 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

So wait. Renovation of the stadium in its current location, in a way that will lead to the construction of a land-bridge and development of the waterfront is on the table. And the renovation would cost $1 billion. But the Haslams want to build a new stadium somewhere else and it could cost $3 Billion. If those are actually the options, I applaud Bibb for pushing to keep it where it is. $2 billion is so much money. The entire ARPA fund Cleveland got was $450 million. So we're talking about saving 4 ARPAs worth of money by keeping the stadium where it is. That seems like a no-brainer to me. The only real downside is the lack of a dome which means the stadium will continue to get used about 13 times a year instead of, say, 20 times a year like a domed stadium would. And it means Haslam doesn't get his one superbowl that he might not get anyway.

Agreed, though as I already stated, I'm skeptical of these numbers. A more minimal, and thus cheaper, renovation would be even better. 

 

--

 

How exactly are the Haslams helping with the Lakefront development plans? If they aren't paying for their stadium I don't think they are putting much money into the development, they don't own the land, the city does, so what exactly will they have to do with this development other than proposing the initial idea? I'm honestly confused on this point. What is doing the city from just moving forward with the development regardless of what happens with the stadium? 

14 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

So wait. Renovation of the stadium in its current location, in a way that will lead to the construction of a land-bridge and development of the waterfront is on the table. And the renovation would cost $1 billion. But the Haslams want to build a new stadium somewhere else and it could cost $3 Billion. If those are actually the options, I applaud Bibb for pushing to keep it where it is. $2 billion is so much money. The entire ARPA fund Cleveland got was $450 million. So we're talking about saving 4 ARPAs worth of money by keeping the stadium where it is. That seems like a no-brainer to me. The only real downside is the lack of a dome which means the stadium will continue to get used about 13 times a year instead of, say, 20 times a year like a domed stadium would. And it means Haslam doesn't get his one superbowl that he might not get anyway.

If the Haslams wanted to get more usage out of the stadium. Why don’t the Haslams and Cleveland try to cut a deal with the Big Ten to host a neutral site football game at the stadium. Then see if the Cleveland soccer team would play their games at Browns stadium. They can tarp off the top of the stadium or use that for sponsorship tarps while keeping the lower bowl for fans that way the stadium gets more year round usage. When I was at school in Cincinnati. FC Cincinnati (Cincy’s pro soccer team) used Nippert stadium as their home field the first few years.

Even if we got a dome l doubt we could get a Super Bowl due to a lack of hotel rooms. 'Course we would still be missing out on the other events a dome would bring. Count me in the dome camp knowing fully we'll we can't afford one and God knows even if we did coble together the $$ l'm sure other needed projects would be put even further off. In other words; want a dome, don't have the money, moving on.

 

I think the best news is finally getting the land bridge followed by (massive?) development of the lakefront. That's probably just as important if not more important than a stadium. 

 

Finally, new hangers for Burke?? Christ, we're never getting rid of that thing. And while l'm on the subject of Burke why can't planes takeoff and land from the East? That way we could really build some high rises on the lake. I'm sure there's a good reason why that can't be done but if there is l can't remember reading about it. Hey wouldn't it be funny if that was the solution to building some tall buildings down there. Look at me. I'm a genius.

So I wonder how much a new, open air stadium would cost at another location? Perhaps it could be designed to accommodate a retractable roof in in the future.  Maybe that might be a better option.  Then the entire lakefront site would be a blank slate for development.

 

Edited April 18, 20232 yr by LibertyBlvd

28 minutes ago, cadmen said:

 And while l'm on the subject of Burke why can't planes takeoff and land from the East?  Look at me. I'm a genius.

@cadmenHeavens know that you may indeed be a genius and have established decades  of proof.  🤗 However,  with no real expertise in aviation, my guess would be because the winds sometime change directions and they need the flexibility to change directions of either landings & takeoffs?  @B767PILOTis this true? 

Am I the only downer here who read this as the Browns are now likely to win the AFC Championship at home, but while playing in another home city. Just Cleveland's luck. 

47 minutes ago, cadmen said:

Finally, new hangers for Burke?? Christ, we're never getting rid of that thing. And while l'm on the subject of Burke why can't planes takeoff and land from the East? That way we could really build some high rises on the lake. I'm sure there's a good reason why that can't be done but if there is l can't remember reading about it. Hey wouldn't it be funny if that was the solution to building some tall buildings down there. Look at me. I'm a genius.

No matter how big the plane is, they typically take off into headwind and land against the wind for lift and drag. Although not required, tower is responsible for giving out weather data from a ground POV which usually dictates which direction planes take off and land. They can take off and land while moving with the wind as well. Wind can switch directions from east to west, to west to east at any point in time.

Edited April 17, 20232 yr by tastybunns

23 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

So I wonder how much a new, open air stadium would cost at another location? Maybe that might be a better option. 

That’s what I was wondering - why does the choice have to be renovated open air Versus new location dome?  Maybe if the number comparison is something like 1 billion vs. 1.25 -1.5 For the new open air stadium on the east side of downtown - and you get to keep the team playing in Cleveland for all 3 years of the rebuild - maybe public opinion would shift. 

 

8 minutes ago, scg80 said:

Am I the only downer here who read this as the Browns are now likely to win the AFC Championship at home, but while playing in another home city. Just Cleveland's luck. 

I REALLY find it ironic that the supposed champion - contending Browns with their new stud QB could possibly have one of its most exciting eras (hey, it’s possible) 

playing in another city.  That’s a Nope 👎 for me.  
 

 

Psychological warfare. Hey Cleveland, we’re gonna move the team for 3 years, for a $1 billion dollar open air stadium in the exact same location.

 

Zero intention of following through with this.

 

 

Edited April 17, 20232 yr by marty15

Meh. Pro sports makes its living conning municipalities for facilities so theres never really an ideal scenario. However, this is still nowhere near one of the worst and at least gives some return. It at least ensures the team would stay Downtown. This is a penthouse suite compared to the motel Buffalo Bills plan of a downsized stadium surrounded by parking in the suburbs. Theres far worse owners in pro sports than Haslam. The Columbus Crew stadium has panned out well.

 

From a selfish football purists view, I hate domed stadiums, but I'd like a bit more cover on the seats to protect from the elements.

Edited April 17, 20232 yr by snakebite

With renovations that are extensive to the point that “it won’t look anything like it does now”, can't they add some sort of outdoor retail or anything to the exterior that would make it usable in some fashion besides football?

The spaces could be designed to blend in with the vision of added other apartments down there as well

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

First, I think we need to agree on what terms mean what.

 

For the sake of clarity how about we use Dome for a fixed, permanently closed-roof stadium to differentiate between that and a Retractable roof stadium. Personally I'd rank having to watch the team indoors when it's 70 deg and sunny outside as way more miserable than watching them play outside in a snowstorm. 

 

Second it was kind of hilarious hearing Tony Grossi on ESPN 850 bad-mouthing Ken's article all the while managing to sound both drunk AND senile before accidentally hanging up the phone during his interview lol. 

Edited April 17, 20232 yr by surfohio

4 hours ago, KJP said:

 

The HoF stadium has only 23,000 seats. I think the Browns would rather play Progressive Field.

What about Akron's football stadium? It's 30k. 

With this very short timeline proposed to start construction on a rebuilding of The Cleveland Browns Stadium I assume they have plans already in the works for a design.

Three years isn't that short.

2 hours ago, DO_Summers said:

@cadmenHeavens know that you may indeed be a genius and have established decades  of proof.  🤗 However,  with no real expertise in aviation, my guess would be because the winds sometime change directions and they need the flexibility to change directions of either landings & takeoffs?  @B767PILOTis this true? 

100% true (I don't fly 767s, but I am a private pilot).   Planes always take off and land into the wind. 

 

Actually the prevailing winds in Cleveland favor the 24 runways most of the time, so only the take offs are to the west.   The landings come from the east. 

 

Also the current location of the stadium does not affect BKL ops at all, other than instrument departures fly a northerly heading of 350 after takeoff.   

This is HORRIBLE news. Get that monstrosity off of the Lakefront! I'm soo pissed right now. 

@KJP Any idea what they are contemplating for the transit center?  Is it going to be a glorified bus stop or something more elaborate.  Say a center for RTA buses, a new indoor stop for the rapid, a long distance bus terminal and a new Amtrak station?

@Htsguy I haven't heard much about it, but I have heard it could include a Waterfront Line station that replaces the West 3rd and East 9th stations. I've also heard it could include an Amtrak station but I don't know how elaborate it would be. And considering the recent sale of the Greyhound station and Greyhound's desire to co-locate stations with Amtrak, I wouldn't be surprised to see The Dog in there, too.

 

More news...

 

 

Wtam about to do a segment about the new stadium news - with Greg Brenda - 

9:25 pm 

Daryl doesn't think the Browns will have to play for 2-3 years away from their stadium during its rebuilding. He cites the Progressive Field renovation as precedent. My understanding is that Cleveland Browns Stadium's rebuilding will be more substantial. 

37 minutes ago, CleveFan said:

Wtam about to do a segment about the new stadium news - with Greg Brenda - 

9:25 pm 

 Thanks a lot Greg Brenda - irresponsible broadcasting - saying you’ll talk about the stadium during the 9:30 -10 pm segment  - then completely blowing it off. Ridiculous 

The more I sit on this potential plan/news the more it’s hard to believe, it feels like season ticket holders wouldnt be to be keen on driving 2hrs every Sunday. Also so many sponsors/corporate relationships that will be on pause for 3 years while they’re gone
 

maybe this leaked talk is just to get the public up in arms and help move forward the haslems real agenda with the city, moving the team for 3 years 2hrs away with the best formed team in decades is really hard to believe 

Edited April 18, 20232 yr by BoomerangCleRes

Did anyone get ahold of the questionnaire they sent to season ticket holders about the new stadium that was sent in the last couple of months, wonder if there was anything about how far they’d be willing to drive if it meant getting a new stadium in a couple years 

9 hours ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

The more I sit on this potential plan/news the more it’s hard to believe, it feels like season ticket holders wouldnt be to be keen on driving 2hrs every Sunday. Also so many sponsors/corporate relationships that will be on pause for 3 years while they’re gone
 

maybe this leaked talk is just to get the public up in arms and help move forward the haslems real agenda with the city, moving the team for 3 years 2hrs away with the best formed team in decades is really hard to believe 

There is precedent.  The Chicago Bears played at the University of Illinois during the rebuild of Soldier Felid, although I believe that was only for one season.

10 hours ago, CleveFan said:

 Thanks a lot Greg Brenda - irresponsible broadcasting - saying you’ll talk about the stadium during the 9:30 -10 pm segment  - then completely blowing it off. Ridiculous 

Apparently he finally got to it after 10:00 pm.  Unfortunately, I dozed off and only caught the last couple minutes.

5 minutes ago, Htsguy said:

There is precedent.  The Chicago Bears played at the University of Illinois during the rebuild of Soldier Felid, although I believe that was only for one season.

 

Two seasons. Renovation took 20 months. If the Browns can work some magic and do it in stages, leaving the heavy structural work to one year, perhaps they could limit the time the team plays elsewhere to one season. But would be very surprised if they could do it without playing elsewhere at all.

10 hours ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

Did anyone get ahold of the questionnaire they sent to season ticket holders about the new stadium that was sent in the last couple of months, wonder if there was anything about how far they’d be willing to drive if it meant getting a new stadium in a couple years 

They didn't ask that on the questionnaire 

47 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

Two seasons. Renovation took 20 months. If the Browns can work some magic and do it in stages, leaving the heavy structural work to one year, perhaps they could limit the time the team plays elsewhere to one season. But would be very surprised if they could do it without playing elsewhere at all.

Assuming they play somewhere else, I assume that would be in Columbus? I know it has not been mentioned but where else could it be? The MAC schools in NE Ohio have stadiums that are too small and not enough amenities to support a temporary home for the NFL 

T-Town does not seem like it would be appropriate either. 

Columbus would have the amenities and the stadium size to work. The other benefit to Columbus is that it plants the flag and further reinforces Columbus as a Browns town as it has been strongly trending toward the Bengals in recent years.