February 8, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, dave2017 said: SoFi Stadium, in Los Angeles, had to be built into the ground to accommodate the height restrictions from LAX flight patterns. I don't know if that site has height limitations. just to clarify, my (dumb) question is asking if the purched land could be used as an airport to replace Burke.
February 8, 20241 yr 5 minutes ago, TMart said: It is my understanding that the current stadium will not support the weight of a roof. I would assume the amount of money spent on "renovation" could fix this? OMG they're now saying on 92.3 that a stadium in Brook Park won't be desolate for now; it would create a thriving surrounding area with hotels, bars & restaurants. I'm dying here.
February 8, 20241 yr 2 minutes ago, 3 Dog Pat said: just to clarify, my (dumb) question is asking if the purched land could be used as an airport to replace Burke. The purchased land literally borders Cleveland Hopkins so I doubt it.
February 8, 20241 yr On 7/31/2023 at 3:36 PM, OhioFinest said: I vote for the NE Downtown location. Yes, there would have to be a lot of land purchasing, but this is truly the best spot. This would revitalize this part of Downtown Cleveland, keep it close to the lakefront, bridge the gap between downtown and Cleveland State and also keep the Muni Lot relevant. Again, i know this would be the hardest site to acquire, but its simply the best location IMO. I hope the powers that be understand the 100 year decision this could become. Something that could change the franchise and the city forever!! You get what you pay for and this site would be fantastic!! I think this was the east downtown site that was being discussed.
February 8, 20241 yr @KJPjust saw the article mentioned on the Ultimate Cleveland Sports Show earlier.
February 8, 20241 yr 3 minutes ago, columbus17 said: Someone knew. That's why the ped bridge suddenly got funding... No it's not. They got funding because the land bridge is needed no matter what (see Dee Haslam's quote) and will be useful to more people without the stadium there AND if the stadium site is developed with dense, year-round uses. 3 minutes ago, columbus17 said: Planes are loud. Very loud. Seems foolish - and they will HAVE to dome the new one with all that noise. A stadium on the Brook Park site won't be under a flight path. Even if it was, so what? Ford Field sets new decibel record, really was as loud as a jet engine https://www.mlive.com/lions/2024/01/ford-field-sets-new-decibel-record-really-was-as-loud-as-a-jet-engine.html "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
February 8, 20241 yr 7 minutes ago, surfohio said: I would assume the amount of money spent on "renovation" could fix this? OMG they're now saying on 92.3 that a stadium in Brook Park won't be desolate for now; it would create a thriving surrounding area with hotels, bars & restaurants. I'm dying here. I think it is mostly because it's built on a landfill.
February 8, 20241 yr 10 minutes ago, KJP said: No it's not. They got funding because the land bridge is needed no matter what (see Dee Haslam's quote) and will be useful to more people without the stadium there AND if the stadium site is developed with dense, year-round uses. A stadium on the Brook Park site won't be under a flight path. Even if it was, so what? Ford Field sets new decibel record, really was as loud as a jet engine https://www.mlive.com/lions/2024/01/ford-field-sets-new-decibel-record-really-was-as-loud-as-a-jet-engine.html Ken, do you think we could see a land swap a la IX center between Brook Park and Cleveland as part of this?
February 8, 20241 yr 7 minutes ago, KFM44107 said: Ken, do you think we could see a land swap a la IX center between Brook Park and Cleveland as part of this? No indication of that happening. Brook Park can offer the same legal/financial tools as Cleveland can -- tax abatement, tax-increment financing, bonds, etc. Brook Park falls short on the game-day public services (police, fire, EMS, trash collection, etc). Because the lakefront was reclaimed submerged land, it cannot be owned by anyone other than the city, the state or a state-chartered public agency. The Haslams can own and control everything in Brook Park and thus reap the financial rewards of everything associated with the stadium. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
February 8, 20241 yr welp one brookpark positive is that at least all the stadium construction and development might slo the roll of my bro and the rest of the gang at ford from blowing their checks on the grayton road tavern queen of hearts. 😂🤷♂️
February 8, 20241 yr 2 hours ago, zbaris87 said: Some insight on this motive and reasoning by the Browns: Haslam has a very close relationship with Jerry Jones and Stan Kroenke. Both of them privately financed stadiums outside of downtown, where they control all of the real estate. SoFi and AT&T Stadium and Dallas have had wild success with no downside being out of downtown. SoFi's proximity is within a mile of LAX and has landed every major event. The Haslam's are simply following the model of both of these owners. The key is controlling all of the real estate, retail, hotel and all other revenue. This is very real and much more lucrative for the Haslams I understand your line of thinking, but in these examples there was no loss for the central business district (never mind the vast market size differences). LA was playing in the Colisuem in a neighborhood not known for it's sports bars. And Dallas was up the street in Irving. It's not like they left a district that depended on them. This move would be CRUSHING to downtown Cleveland. I know the naysayers like to talk about 12 games a year, but for many of these weekends the hotels are sold out from Friday through Monday. People come into town to party and attend other events in downtown Cleveland, then hit the game on Sunday. It's a key component of downtown restaurant, bar and hotel revenue. So Haslam will have his real estate and a little football "village" in Brookpark, but who the hell is going there other than those 12 days a year? That math doesn't work either.
February 8, 20241 yr If Haslam moves the Browns to Brook Park, he should have to change the team's name to the Brook Park Birds and change their colors. A few years later we'll get a brown and orange expansion team called the Cleveland Browns. Edited February 8, 20241 yr by jam40jeff
February 8, 20241 yr 1 hour ago, TMart said: I strongly disagree. Part of the excitement of attending a Browns game was going to downtown Cleveland. I love the atmosphere and dining/drinking downtown or in The Flats. I imagine thousands of others feel the same. I was really hoping somehow a new stadium could be built north of Playhouse Square, though I think it could have stayed on the lakefront. Good luck with something meaningful happening with that lakefront land. Seems like there are miles of lakefront that could be developed that hasn't been. Hopefully something does happen there. I doubt I will be alive to see it. So now there is less of a reason for me to visit Cleveland or attend Browns games. It's really a shame. You're describing your preferred experience as a fan, which is different than what's best for the city. I have no idea what the fan experience would be like at a new Brook Park stadium. But Cleveland would be more vibrant with 10,000 people living, working, and shopping on this site 365 days a year than having 60,000 people visit ten days a year. Also, its just not the case that there are miles of undeveloped lakefront land, and certainly none so close and walkable to the existing downtown core.
February 8, 20241 yr "Another mayor that lost the Browns"....that is not nearly the same, the Browns will still be in the County/Region in Brookpark IF they leave, and that still is a ways to go on a decision. The Browns under Mike White left the entire state and that was due to Art Modell just wanting to leave. Some of you all are being EXTREMELY dramatic. DustinFox or pointing out the glass half empty view of Justin Bibb as seemingly always happens with him also forgot to mention the Cross Country Mortgage move, The North Coast Harbor non-profit idea to draw new funding sources, Canon Healthcare, Shore to Core proposal (currently held up by council), Bedrock Riverfront work getting started etc. Medical Mutual had already been gone from Downtown after COVID essentially, and GLBC looking for new digs is not a done deal and still has a possibility of staying especially since Mayor Bibb has allocated money to clean up land that can be used for projects literally like the GLBC.What you have is a mayor reimagining Cleveland right now and yes the city has taken losses but we've also seen tangible and creative ideas that we haven't seen before with ACTUAL steps being taken towards it. That is something we haven't seen in a loooooong time. Add on the 15 minute city initiative and the redoing of Cleveland's parking code to encourage more TOD, the 15 million dollars designated for the Southeast Side etc. He's done a nice amount of good in the 2-3 years he's been in office for a city that had been regressing under inept leadership for the past 60-70 years. I might sound like a Bibb homer but I just can't sit up here and have people act like he hasn't been doing tons more work in a short amount of time that Mayors who had multiple terms never even cared to do. Is he perfect? No but he is doing a lot more work to make Cleveland a complete city than other mayors have by far and has been working to get Cleveland in the national spotlight. If the Browns left the city (which isn't a done deal) it would be a blow but the city would be alright we did alright in the 90s when they left because we focused on increasing the quality of other neighborhoods and we'd do it again. Only time will tell, the Browns have a long time and a lot of negotiating to do.Sent from my Pixel 8 Pro using Tapatalk
February 8, 20241 yr 3 minutes ago, Cleburger said: I understand your line of thinking, but in these examples there was no loss for the central business district (never mind the vast market size differences). LA was playing in the Colisuem in a neighborhood not known for it's sports bars. And Dallas was up the street in Irving. It's not like they left a district that depended on them. This move would be CRUSHING to downtown Cleveland. I know the naysayers like to talk about 12 games a year, but for many of these weekends the hotels are sold out from Friday through Monday. People come into town to party and attend other events in downtown Cleveland, then hit the game on Sunday. It's a key component of downtown restaurant, bar and hotel revenue. So Haslam will have his real estate and a little football "village" in Brookpark, but who the hell is going there other than those 12 days a year? That math doesn't work either. There will be a follow up article coming regarding this. It won't be as negative of an impact on downtown as you think. Trust me. The article will outline all of this
February 8, 20241 yr 7 minutes ago, ryanfrazier said: You're describing your preferred experience as a fan, which is different than what's best for the city. I have no idea what the fan experience would be like at a new Brook Park stadium. But Cleveland would be more vibrant with 10,000 people living, working, and shopping on this site 365 days a year than having 60,000 people visit ten days a year. Also, its just not the case that there are miles of undeveloped lakefront land, and certainly none so close and walkable to the existing downtown core. I think what's best for the city is to have both. Ideally, an alternate location in or near downtown would great for the stadium. Edited February 8, 20241 yr by TMart
February 8, 20241 yr On 12/13/2023 at 6:30 AM, coneflower said: I'm not hand-wringing, I just posted an article that is relevant to what is happening here. Why is it crazy to imagine the Haslam's also keeping an eye on this, too? The point about the TIF debate is fair and I'll be honest I still don't totally understand how that works, but does it address the fact that they also want land around the stadium to develop? The city's lakefront plan is a big park around Browns stadium with a little development. That seems like a philosophical conflict based on what I've read of the two sides' positions. Factor that in with the idea that they want more money from the city, I don't think it outlandish to consider what their other options might be. From my understanding the existing tax revenues those properties generate still go to the city, county, school district etc... i.e. they were paying $5 million a year for the current value of the property in taxes. It is the revenue from the increased value of the properties that go towards paying off the costs of financing construction, its labor costs and what have you instead of to the city and other public entities. So if the land increased to a project $15 million in property taxes, $5 million still goes to the city and the remainder goes to paying off the debt for construction.
February 8, 20241 yr I have also heard from someone that the land is for a non football use.I've wondered about the timing of the purchase, mixed with the recent news of Cleveland trying to land the NWSL, and him already being an owner of the Crew. This could be a ballpark village for that, long shot but possible. Sent from my Pixel 8 Pro using Tapatalk
February 8, 20241 yr 2 minutes ago, WindyBuckeye said: I have also heard from someone that the land is for a non football use. Besides Pilot and Flying J, and the Columbus Crew, what other business interests do the Haslams have besides the Browns?
February 8, 20241 yr 56 minutes ago, TMart said: I think this was the east downtown site that was being discussed. So basically moving the stadium from one side of the shoreway to the other and a little to the east. It might be a pain in the butt trying to purchase all those properties. I know that part of town looks rather shabby, but I'm not sure I would want to see it cleared out for a stadium and surface parking lots that will only be used a dozen or so time per year. I think the old CEI site would be OK or else a site near the post office. Edited February 8, 20241 yr by LibertyBlvd
February 8, 20241 yr 12 minutes ago, 3 Dog Pat said: Besides Pilot and Flying J, and the Columbus Crew, what other business interests do the Haslams have besides the Browns? Not that these help but the Milwaukee bucks and their son owns a portion of Nashvilles NHL team. theres been reports last year that haslem sports group is still looking to expand into more pro franchises, complete speculation would be going full on for NHL since that’s the only thing Cleveland and the haslem’s lack but as mentioned the land is “not for a stadium” so guessing not related to another sports franchise Edited February 8, 20241 yr by BoomerangCleRes
February 8, 20241 yr 2 hours ago, YABO713 said: Not a KJP level scoop, (and no I can't DM details lol) but I just heard someone involved with the organization that there is an alternative use in mind for the Brook Park parcel. The sole purpose of the purchase was not a stadium OMG. WERE GETTING A BUCC-EE’S!
February 8, 20241 yr Well, who know what this means...but by my count there are about 13 NFL stadiums located in their City's Downtown- like the Cleveland Browns. 7 teams located in their namesake city, but not downtown- Like the Kansas City Chiefs. And there are 12 teams that do not technically play in their namesake city- Like the Dallas Cowboys. Someone could surely debate some of these, but the point is, whatever happens, it will not be unusual. Plus, there have been a few comments about "losing the Browns" and it's been said in a few different contexts, but moving to Brookpark, is not the same as relocating to Baltimore. No one else in the country would ever question that the site is not "in Cleveland".
February 8, 20241 yr 28 minutes ago, WindyBuckeye said: I have also heard from someone that the land is for a non football use. Hmm. Maybe IKEA?
February 8, 20241 yr I don't see it as a loss, but an opportunity to use the lakefront in a more prudent way. I also don't care if the Browns play 8 or 9 games a year in Brook Park if in return there is residential built on that location. Edited February 8, 20241 yr by newyorker
February 8, 20241 yr Lets all say hypothetically they do move the stadium to the Brookpark location and build around it. Would living next to an airport be an attractive place to move to? I would personally take my money elsewhere, such as on the lake. But to each his own. I favor whichever location brings me a damn championship already
February 8, 20241 yr I'm fairly ambivalent on if the Browns play in their current location or Brook Park. It was kind of cool having all three major teams playing downtown, but that land has potential to be used for something (several options) even more cool. My biggest concern is that the Haslam's / Browns were a major private force pushing for the land bridge. What they've already done has been massive, will the project be able to get to the finish line without the Haslam's lending their influence to the project? It shouldn't matter, but regardless, I'd say that if the Browns aren't staying at the lake, the odds of the land bridge actually getting built only decrease. Similarly, while the land the stadium is sitting on has a lot of potential, there's also the all too real possibility that potential doesn't get realized anytime soon. A stadium isn't the best use of lakefront land, but it's better than it being desolate. I'm optimistic, but the worst case scenario shouldn't be ignored. That said, we don't know if the Browns are moving or not. Regardless of where they play (provided they stay in NEO) I'm hoping the City makes the best use of whatever Lakefront land is available, and public funds are kept to a realistic minimum. At the end of the day I think the impact of where the stadium is located is exaggerated (in both directions). I think the City can make lemonade out of any option the Brown's choose with good leadership and wise decision making.
February 8, 20241 yr 1 hour ago, WindyBuckeye said: I have also heard from someone that the land is for a non football use. I wonder what that would be. Haslam just sold the last of his truck stop operation; so he's loaded with cash at the moment. A good fallout from getting rid of the current stadium: suddenly the now-smallish bit of surrounding North Coast Harbor land becomes a much more attractive development site. Remember: It's the Year of the Snake
February 8, 20241 yr ive gotten some reliable scoop that the browns have done this for leverage. They dont plan on leaving downtown.
February 8, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, BelievelandD1 said: ive gotten some reliable scoop that the browns have done this for leverage. They dont plan on leaving downtown. The Brook Park site is just madness. You can't build an Inglewood CA or Arlington TX development in this market. Those projects also have more than one major tenant.
February 8, 20241 yr 50 minutes ago, newyorker said: I don't see it as a loss, but an opportunity to use the lakefront in a more prudent way. I also don't care if the Browns play 8 or 9 games a year in Brook Park if in return there is residential built on that location. It would really be nice to see a lakefront development rendering WITHOUT the stadium. Every lakefront development rendering so far has the stadium remaining.
February 8, 20241 yr 33 minutes ago, CleveFan said: @KJPto be on WTAM shortly after the 4 pm news supposedly https://wtam.iheart.com 4:08 is the estimate
February 8, 20241 yr If the team stadium isn't located in Cleveland, then the Haslams don't really have any business interest in the city at all, do they?
February 8, 20241 yr 17 minutes ago, BelievelandD1 said: ive gotten some reliable scoop that the browns have done this for leverage. They dont plan on leaving downtown. Whether you like the Haslam's or not it's a smart move for leverage. Also a silver lining: keeping the Browns on the Lakefront should by all accounts really accelerate the timeline for surrounding development there.
February 8, 20241 yr 1 hour ago, Ethan said: I'm fairly ambivalent on if the Browns play in their current location or Brook Park. It was kind of cool having all three major teams playing downtown, but that land has potential to be used for something (several options) even more cool. My biggest concern is that the Haslam's / Browns were a major private force pushing for the land bridge. What they've already done has been massive, will the project be able to get to the finish line without the Haslam's lending their influence to the project? It shouldn't matter, but regardless, I'd say that if the Browns aren't staying at the lake, the odds of the land bridge actually getting built only decrease. Similarly, while the land the stadium is sitting on has a lot of potential, there's also the all too real possibility that potential doesn't get realized anytime soon. A stadium isn't the best use of lakefront land, but it's better than it being desolate. I'm optimistic, but the worst case scenario shouldn't be ignored. That said, we don't know if the Browns are moving or not. Regardless of where they play (provided they stay in NEO) I'm hoping the City makes the best use of whatever Lakefront land is available, and public funds are kept to a realistic minimum. At the end of the day I think the impact of where the stadium is located is exaggerated (in both directions). I think the City can make lemonade out of any option the Brown's choose with good leadership and wise decision making. I agree with all of your points.
February 8, 20241 yr If the Browns actually do move their games to Brookpark, I will be greatly disappointed. Personally, I would much rather be downtown. But if the choice is building a state-of-art domed stadium in Brookpark or renovate an already inferior stadium built on a landfill that can't support a roof, I'd opt for the former.
February 8, 20241 yr The more I listen to Ken on this WTAM interview, the more I think this is a real intention by the Haslams. It puts all the pressure on the city to come up with lots of money for the Haslams (that they’d rather not have to pay). The Haslams figure “we either win on the front end or we win a few years down the road.” Edited February 8, 20241 yr by CleveFan
February 8, 20241 yr Close Burke (I know, I know), build the new stadium there and surround it with hotels, residential and amenities and free up the remaining lakefront land where the old stadium sits for family oriented amenities and tourist attractions. Sent from my Pixel 8 Pro using Tapatalk
February 8, 20241 yr Reading through some of comments here it occurred to me that a lot of you have forgotten who you are. We come on this forum because we care about development in the core of our region. That's why most of the topics revolve around downtown and UC with a little Ohio City, Tremont and Detroit Shoreway thrown in. We don't care about the latest office park in Westlake or Mayfield. We don't care about that new housing development going up in Avon. If we did we would be talking about it. We get all excited about the new SHW building but if we really think about it it's not so much the building (cool as it is) but what it means for the health of downtown. We want to see the core developed. We don't want sprawl. So why are some of you ok with taking a major downtown assest and moving it somewhere else in the region? It would be one thing if we were booming. We could afford to dilute our strength. But we're not booming. Oh we have improved from the F grade we earned at our nadir to probably a solid C. But make no mistake, if you travel like l do and see what is happening elsewhere you will understand that a middling city like Cleveland cannot afford to make mistakes like this.
February 8, 20241 yr During some planning work done by the airport five years ago, a concept graphic was created for building an intercity rail station at the airport with a walkway, new long-term parking garage and supportive developments. Unfortunately, this wouldn't work anymore with the construction of the Amazon distribution center. So any walkway would have to turn due east after leaving a new long-term parking garage... "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
February 8, 20241 yr Any insight on the "various additional sites" comments within the Browns' official statement?
February 8, 20241 yr 18 minutes ago, cadmen said: Reading through some of comments here it occurred to me that a lot of you have forgotten who you are. We come on this forum because we care about development in the core of our region. That's why most of the topics revolve around downtown and UC with a little Ohio City, Tremont and Detroit Shoreway thrown in. We don't care about the latest office park in Westlake or Mayfield. We don't care about that new housing development going up in Avon. If we did we would be talking about it. We get all excited about the new SHW building but if we really think about it it's not so much the building (cool as it is) but what it means for the health of downtown. We want to see the core developed. We don't want sprawl. So why are some of you ok with taking a major downtown assest and moving it somewhere else in the region? It would be one thing if we were booming. We could afford to dilute our strength. But we're not booming. Oh we have improved from the F grade we earned at our nadir to probably a solid C. But make no mistake, if you travel like l do and see what is happening elsewhere you will understand that a middling city like Cleveland cannot afford to make mistakes like this. Because a football stadium is the least-urban type of structure there is. It's huge, needs a lot of surface parking, and is only used 10 days a year. The other 355 days its not an asset its a liability. That lakefront land can be put to a better use, a more lively, urban neighborhood.
February 8, 20241 yr 3 minutes ago, ryanfrazier said: Because a football stadium is the least-urban type of structure there is. It's huge, needs a lot of surface parking, and is only used 10 days a year. The other 355 days its not an asset its a liability. That lakefront land can be put to a better use, a more lively, urban neighborhood. Wouldn't the North Coast Transit Center with expanded RTA help solve the need for a lot of the surface lots?
February 8, 20241 yr 7 hours ago, fujiyoshida said: Cons: This sucks for downtown businesses on Sundays during the season. Possibly intentional. The Browns have been trying to pull the money people spend downtown (or on things they bring downtown) into their facilities for awhile. The weak ass "tailgate" they hold (if you are not in or adjacent to a parking lot it is not a tailgate) being a classic example. They also make money letting companies set up booths there.
February 8, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, surfohio said: Wouldn't the North Coast Transit Center with expanded RTA help solve the need for a lot of the surface lots? I don't know what you mean by expanded RTA. More rail lines? More bus routes? Those things are good regardless of the stadium but don't seem to be in the budget at the moment. But a lot of people drive for the tailgating experience. And you've still got a massive structure for 10 days a year.
February 8, 20241 yr 29 minutes ago, brownsfan1226 said: Any insight on the "various additional sites" comments within the Browns' official statement? Mr. McNeil has taken the liberty of commenting....
February 8, 20241 yr 3 minutes ago, ryanfrazier said: I don't know what you mean by expanded RTA. More rail lines? More bus routes? Those things are good regardless of the stadium but don't seem to be in the budget at the moment. But a lot of people drive for the tailgating experience. And you've still got a massive structure for 10 days a year. Expanded in the sense that a "Transit center" focuses services and amenities on that immediate area vs. what we have now.
Create an account or sign in to comment