3 minutes ago, brownsfan1226 said:

 

It has definitely become disheartening to see. While I get the need to independently verify, if every news outlet and several other papers, business journals, and even the AP are reporting a story, it's strange to me why the PD is either this late to the party, or are actively avoiding the story.

 

nobody want to pay for vetted news anymore. like with an editor, fact checkers and a point of view. that era is out the window.

 

11 minutes ago, brownsfan1226 said:

 

It has definitely become disheartening to see. While I get the need to independently verify, if every news outlet and several other papers, business journals, and even the AP are reporting a story, it's strange to me why the PD is either this late to the party, or are actively avoiding the story.

 

Is the PD still in the news business?

1 minute ago, Ethan said:

I took this as a joke (which I think is how you meant it?) Nevertheless, I was kind of curious, about this probably too expensive solution. It doesn't work at the start of the muni lot, but if you push it east (~E20) until after the shoreway curves you could have a somewhat practical stadium placement without even capping the shoreway, and it's almost entirely unoccupied land.

 

 

this would be a great alternative spot. a stadium village could go above it up in town. they could build with a open view looking down into the stadium. and maybe a bit open opposite for a lake side view as well. it could be amazing. everybody wins.

4 minutes ago, mrnyc said:

 

this would be a great alternative spot. a stadium village could go above it up in town. they could build with a open view looking down into the stadium. and maybe a bit open opposite for a lake side view as well. it could be amazing. everybody wins.

That's exactly what I was thinking! Other than adding possibly hundreds of millions of dollars in up front costs, it really gives both the city and Haslams' what they want.

 

Personally I like the efficiency of the plan as that land isn't very useful for anything other than a stadium. 

Except Amtrak apparently wants to the use the abandoned East 26th Yard that's between the northernmost track and South Marginal Road for a train layover/servicing facility for any future expansion of service here. And they own the land. But the city/ODOT wants to use the same land for a ramp for extending East 18th Street north to an intersection with a Shoreway-turned-boulevard. East 18th could be extended north without taking the past/future railyard...

 

well the city can walk that 18st connection idea back, thats not so important.

 

otoh ... the amtrak yard is very important ... and frankly a great fit there as its otherwise out of the way next to burke.

 

aww dam -- unless amtrak could design yard tracks around a stadium, maybe they could, i dk, or maybe just put the yard east of it, but if not that would seem to remove what could be by far the most unique nfl stadium site available. 

26 minutes ago, KJP said:

Except Amtrak apparently wants to the use the abandoned East 26th Yard that's between the northernmost track and South Marginal Road for a train layover/servicing facility for any future expansion of service here. And they own the land. But the city/ODOT wants to use the same land for a ramp for extending East 18th Street north to an intersection with a Shoreway-turned-boulevard. East 18th could be extended north without taking the past/future railyard...

 

Thanks! If money grew on trees and the powers that be were set on this location, I'm sure it could be made to work, but it sounds like there are good reasons that this site isn't being considered by the people whose job it is to consider these things. Oh well, it was fun contemplating it.

 

In case anyone else needs reminded (as I did) what the city's proposal for extending E18 was see below. 

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, mrnyc said:

well the city can walk that 18st connection idea back, thats not so important.

 

otoh ... the amtrak yard is very important ... and frankly a great fit there as its otherwise out of the way next to burke.

 

aww dam -- unless amtrak could design yard tracks around a stadium, maybe they could, i dk, or maybe just put the yard east of it, but if not that would seem to remove what could be by far the most unique nfl stadium site available. 

With enough money you could probably build over the rail yard, but (I'm guessing) vacant land isn't hard enough to come by in Cleveland for that option to make economic sense. Edit: though I don't see why it couldn't just be moved east. Looks like there's plenty of space, but what do I know? 

Edited February 9, 20241 yr by Ethan

^ yeah i think the whole idea there was to not have to throw more money on top of new stadium money piles to build on stilts. 

 

i am thinking a railyard layup could either go around it or just east of it with some negotiating with amtrak.

3 minutes ago, mrnyc said:

well the city can walk that 18st connection idea back, thats not so important.

 

otoh ... the amtrak yard is very important ... and frankly a great fit there as its otherwise out of the way next to burke.

 

aww dam -- unless amtrak could design yard tracks around a stadium, maybe they could, i dk, or maybe just put the yard east of it, but if not that would seem to remove what could be by far the most unique nfl stadium site available. 

 

This isn't from an authoritative source, so take it for what it's worth. But I've heard there have been conversations about expanding lakefront service to the stadium (assuming the full lakefront development gets done), and having "feeding" sites - this would include the Flats rail site, The Muni Lot connecting to the stadium by rail, and also an eastern suburb connection at Amtrack.

 

3 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

 

This isn't from an authoritative source, so take it for what it's worth. But I've heard there have been conversations about expanding lakefront service to the stadium (assuming the full lakefront development gets done), and having "feeding" sites - this would include the Flats rail site, The Muni Lot connecting to the stadium by rail, and also an eastern suburb connection at Amtrack.

 

 

This sounds absolutely in line with the plan for the multi-modal transit center, that nobody is mentioning for some reason.

 

“What we ask is that you please include in the final design for the North Coast Connector a multimodal transportation center that unites and seamlessly integrates connections between Amtrak trains, GCRTA buses and light-rail, intercounty bus services (i.e.: Laketran, Akron Metro), intercity buses (i.e.: Greyhound), plus more convenient pedestrian and bike links to the rest of downtown,” Nicholson wrote. “Uniting these modes can put under one roof more than 600,000 annual boardings into one facility, approaching the average annual attendance at Cleveland Browns home games. This will improve connectivity and jobs accessibility, boost the lakefront and local economy and tap into additional funding sources to build a larger and more attractive North Coast Connector.”

 

https://neo-trans.blog/2023/05/02/north-coast-connector-ready-for-its-close-up/

 

 

I have to bring the below graphic up again because I still think this is by far the best location & idea for all our current stadium needs, the solution for both the Browns and future soccer team(s). It keeps all sports downtown, close together, using up unused areas and would activate that inactive area of the flats. It also would put a lot of owners/teams together in one area, pooling their money and therefore hopefully needing less tax payers dollars. The various government entities that own the land can work out a good deal for the public and teams, it would make a dynamic sports complex in the CBD, much like the Gateway Plaza which would be right next door. However, if Haslam just wanted it for his own stadium and amenities village, I'd be perfectly fine with that as well... let'm buy all that space to build his own village. I believe its the perfect location for the Browns, there is access to the Rail Line to build a station for ease of public transit connections and direct access to the interstate. It would also expand the feel of downtown south of the innerbelt and give a a bigger city feel when on the highway.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this site plan was @KJP's Idea. So Ken, now that you have the whole City, State and half the nation going to your Blogsite and following you're every word, maybe you could write up a story of how this site would work so perfectly for the new stadium. They've mentioned how they are looking at many sites, maybe you can use that to your advantage and give this site some buzz. Hopefully that way we get everyone talking about and pressuring the city to try and do a deal with the Browns for that location and really create a dynamic sports district with all the teams within walking distance of each other.. in the CBD.

 

If needed, maybe @Geowizicalcan do a mock up of what the site could look like too.

All I know is that the County should shoulder a significant burden of whatever corporate welfare the Haslam's hold their hands out for. The stadium gets used by everyone across the County and for just 8 games a year, I can't think of a worse example of excess than getting the City to pay for another stadium, assming it isn't domed (which it damn better should be). Get the Haslams / County to pony up big time for it. Otherwise, honestly, let 'em leave. Cleveland should aspire to more anyway.

 

Edited February 9, 20241 yr by ASP1984

21 minutes ago, Ethan said:

Thanks! If money grew on trees and the powers that be were set on this location, I'm sure it could be made to work, but it sounds like there are good reasons that this site isn't being considered by the people whose job it is to consider these things. Oh well, it was fun contemplating it.

 

In case anyone else needs reminded (as I did) what the city's proposal for extending E18 was see below. 

 

 

 

With enough money you could probably build over the rail yard, but (I'm guessing) vacant land isn't hard enough to come by in Cleveland for that option to make economic sense. Edit: though I don't see why it couldn't just be moved east. Looks like there's plenty of space, but what do I know? 

No one asked, but here's a quick napkin sketch of how I'd deal with the concerns from the E18th extension and Amtrak yard. I didn't dig into elevations or how much space is needed for the yard, so maybe this isn't actually possible, but anyway, here you go. 

 

I’d like to add my congratulations - as many others have rightly done - to @KJPfor his outstanding reporting (as usual) on this story and putting media outlets like The Plain Dealer to shame, frankly. Ken, you also sounded great on WTAM.  
 

I’m a proponent of the stadium staying downtown. There’s still a prestige factor in having the stadium whether or not it’s a major economic driver - and there’s an unmatched excitement and energy in the city when a big game is happening downtown.  
 

Certainly, although limited in number, the downtown hotels, restaurants and related businesses  have huge days and weekends on those 9 or 10 seasonal (or playoff hopefully) dates each year.

 

  But I think the Haslams are deadly serious about moving to Brookpark based on two  main premises - money and control.   I’m sure they have a master spreadsheet that compares possible costs and income in the two locations with a number of all- important variables - such as open air versus dome and the possible income sources from related enterprises they could own and  host - including hotels, attractions (think “American Dream” next to Giants Stadium in New Jersey).  
 

At first, when I was thinking about this possible move - I thought, “maybe this is actually not bad for the city “ imagining a whole new neighborhood on the stadium property 

 

However, in the WTAM interview, Ken said that the land there is classified in such s way that it can’t be sold to developers for condos and hotels, etc.   If I understood that correctly, how could the city really develop much there?  Would it turn into a park area?  That’s my concern - what can actually realistically happen with that site? 
 

If the answer is “not a whole lot” then I’m right back to thinking that the lakefront site is best developed with the stadium as the centerpiece similar to the recent renderings we were shown.  Maybe @KJPor others with greater knowledge can explain the possibilities or limitations on that site for future development. 

Finally, can someone explain why a dome can be built in Brookpark but not downtown? Isn’t that primarily because that’s how Haslam wants it?  Or are there other  financial and/or logistical  dynamics? 

19 hours ago, cadmen said:

We come on this forum because we care about development in the core of our region.

I respect what you are saying here, and I too want a vibrant downtown.  Personally, I am drawn to the word urban. That, to me, means, density, mixed uses, walkability, transit focused, etc.  The prototypical American City has all of those things to the fullest extent at the center of the region and they all diminish the further you get from the center.  However, that model has been shifting for a number of decades, probably starting in the 1950's.  American cities are increasingly de-centralized and more nodal, so you'll see smaller pockets of density more evenly spread out through a region, while the centralized core becomes less THE urban area of a region to becoming one of several.  

 

19 hours ago, ryanfrazier said:

Because a football stadium is the least-urban type of structure there is.

Back to the Browns...I also agree that the prototypical NFL stadium is very anti-urban, but that too is changing.  Stadiums in general are becoming more integrated with surrounding amenities like hotels and entertainment options, maybe even residential.  NBA and MLB are ahead of the NFL in this regard.  As a result, many new stadiums are being built closer to downtowns, but on the other hand, other cities are bringing the amenities to the stadiums.  Regardless of the location, it seems like the entire goal for the Browns is to end up with a stadium surrounded by a dense mix of uses.  

1 minute ago, Dino said:

Regardless of the location, it seems like the entire goal for the Browns is to end up with a stadium surrounded by a dense mix of uses.  

 

If that is indeed true it seems like a no-brainer to keep the current site. 

 

**Unless of course there are structural concerns at the lakefront, which I suppose we'll just continue to speculate about until there's real analysis, the same way we do with Burke. 

3 hours ago, CleveFan said:

However, in the WTAM interview, Ken said that the land there is classified in such s way that it can’t be sold to developers for condos and hotels, etc.   If I understood that correctly, how could the city really develop much there?  Would it turn into a park area?  That’s my concern - what can actually realistically happen with that site? 
 

If the answer is “not a whole lot” then I’m right back to thinking that the lakefront site is best developed with the stadium as the centerpiece similar to the recent renderings we were shown.  Maybe @KJPor others with greater knowledge can explain the possibilities or limitations on that site for future development. 

Finally, can someone explain why a dome can be built in Brookpark but not downtown? Isn’t that primarily because that’s how Haslam wants it?  Or are there other  financial and/or logistical  dynamics? 

 

All of the land north of the railroad tracks was once Lake Erie and was reclaimed by the hand of man. It is not natural land. What is natural land is technically submerged here. Because it borders a foreign country, it thus belongs to the US government which gives management of it to the State of Ohio so only it, or state-chartered agencies can own it (plus the legally more supreme federal government) and be reserved only for public use (and thus, no sale to private entities). Cleveland believes it can own it, too, but can lease it to private users -- it has not tried to sell this land. Neither the USA or Ohio have empowered the city of Cleveland to own this land let alone lease it to others. So there is a legal battle that's been brewing here for a long time. 

More is here: https://www.tuckerellis.com/userfiles/file/Raker_Public Trust Doctrine_Cleveland Bar Journal_October 2014.pdf

3 hours ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

Also would lose another billionaire’s interest, feels slightly similar to what we lost with Peter B. Lewis 

I would pay $100 of my own money (I know it’s a lot) for the Haslams to lose interest in Cleveland. The line of thinking, that we can’t afford not to roll over for these absolute parasites, is noxious. I guarantee we regret any deal made with the Haslams before the ink is dry. 

6 minutes ago, bumsquare said:

I would pay $100 of my own money (I know it’s a lot) for the Haslams to lose interest in Cleveland. The line of thinking, that we can’t afford not to roll over for these absolute parasites, is noxious. I guarantee we regret any deal made with the Haslams before the ink is dry. 

We don’t have a lot of billionaire families that have large scale interest Cleveland, Cincinnati is and has benefitted from their billionaire’s interests. In no way am I saying roll out the red carpet but it’s better to have them than not in the same way having a corporation HQ-ed in your city helps

LOL, didn't we run John D Rockefeller out of town?  Not a great look.  

9 minutes ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

We don’t have a lot of billionaire families that have large scale interest Cleveland, Cincinnati is and has benefitted from their billionaire’s interests. In no way am I saying roll out the red carpet but it’s better to have them than not in the same way having a corporation HQ-ed in your city helps

How have we benefited from the Haslams being in Cleveland? They might (if we give them one billion dollars) build an apartment building? This attitude that we have to placate them so they don’t “leave” us is pure boot licking mentality 

14 minutes ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

We don’t have a lot of billionaire families that have large scale interest Cleveland, Cincinnati is and has benefitted from their billionaire’s interests. In no way am I saying roll out the red carpet but it’s better to have them than not in the same way having a corporation HQ-ed in your city helps

And Jimmy and Dee have given no indication they care. All the pretty presentations in the world don't mean s**t until there are shovels in the ground.

12 minutes ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

We don’t have a lot of billionaire families that have large scale interest Cleveland, Cincinnati is and has benefitted from their billionaire’s interests. In no way am I saying roll out the red carpet but it’s better to have them than not in the same way having a corporation HQ-ed in your city helps

We do have some, such as the Mandels and their foundation. They've given a lot to the Cleveland MetroParks and Orchestra. 

 

https://mandelfoundation.org/home/areas-of-engagement/#5

 

https://mandelfoundation.org/2023/07/17/mandel-foundation-makes-three-grants-to-clevelands-lakefront-parks/

 

8 minutes ago, bumsquare said:

How have we benefited from the Haslams being in Cleveland? They might (if we give them one billion dollars) build an apartment building? This attitude that we have to placate them so they don’t “leave” us is pure boot licking mentality 

 

I'm not as familiar with the Haslams' philanthropy, and I don't think it's anywhere near as extensive, but you're welcome to judge for yourself. 

 

https://www.haslamgiving.org/who-we-are

7 minutes ago, Ethan said:

We do have some, such as the Mandels and their foundation. They've given a lot to the Cleveland MetroParks and Orchestra. 

 

https://mandelfoundation.org/home/areas-of-engagement/#5

 

https://mandelfoundation.org/2023/07/17/mandel-foundation-makes-three-grants-to-clevelands-lakefront-parks/

 

 

I'm not as familiar with the Haslams' philanthropy, and I don't think it's anywhere near as extensive, but you're welcome to judge for yourself. 

 

https://www.haslamgiving.org/who-we-are

I personally would not wrap all of a corporations or sole billionaire’s value to a city around their personal foundations, certainly a piece 

Edited February 9, 20241 yr by BoomerangCleRes

I'd be all in favor of that Post Office area idea, especially if the USPS was already leasing auxiliary space in Parma. Heck, the Haslam's could even sell the USPS the Brook Park land. A post office distribution center definitely seems to gel with that area more than a stadium.

2 hours ago, NR said:

 

I posted over in the Cleveland Soccer thread, but for anyone who hasn't ventured over there, Crain's had an article that the Metroparks would purchase the land from ODOT then lease it to Cleveland Soccer. I liked this location for the Browns stadium before, but I'm liking it more now (assuming the soccer stadium is located here). Ideally the Gateway District's boundaries would be expanded to include these 2 stadiums if it wouldn't already. 

 

Metroparks to be potential intermediary for downtown soccer stadium

Edited February 9, 20241 yr by Luke_S

2 hours ago, brownsfan1226 said:

I'd be all in favor of that Post Office area idea, especially if the USPS was already leasing auxiliary space in Parma. Heck, the Haslam's could even sell the USPS the Brook Park land. A post office distribution center definitely seems to gel with that area more than a stadium.

There is already a huge postal facility near the airport.

 

But yes, the post office site or a site nearby would be the best location for a stadium IMO.  It's relatively close to the other sports venues and thus can take advantage of their parking facilities. It would be easily accessible via highway and RTA. And if a soccer stadium could also be built in the vicinity, it would be a win-win. Let's be realistic, that area is not so glamorous and it is unlikely to see any significant developments in the foreseeable future.

 

Edited February 9, 20241 yr by LibertyBlvd

1 hour ago, bumsquare said:

How have we benefited from the Haslams being in Cleveland? They might (if we give them one billion dollars) build an apartment building? This attitude that we have to placate them so they don’t “leave” us is pure boot licking mentality 

 

I don't think it is bootlicking to create and maintain mutual interest with billionaires. It doesn't mean anyone has to roll over and do whatever they ask. I'd say Cleveland lost strong allies with how things went down with John D. and Peter B. Lewis. Unfortunately, we don't really know what's going on behind the scenes here, so it leaves a lot of room for the imagination. I think there should be more pressure for transparency, especially if at issue is public money and resources.

3 hours ago, CleveFan said:

I’d like to add my congratulations - as many others have rightly done - to @KJPfor his outstanding reporting (as usual) on this story and putting media outlets like The Plain Dealer to shame, frankly. Ken, you also sounded great on WTAM.  
 

I’m a proponent of the stadium staying downtown. There’s still a prestige factor in having the stadium whether or not it’s a major economic driver - and there’s an unmatched excitement and energy in the city when a big game is happening downtown.  
 

Certainly, although limited in number, the downtown hotels, restaurants and related businesses  have huge days and weekends on those 9 or 10 seasonal (or playoff hopefully) dates each year.

 

  But I think the Haslams are deadly serious about moving to Brookpark based on two  main premises - money and control.   I’m sure they have a master spreadsheet that compares possible costs and income in the two locations with a number of all- important variables - such as open air versus dome and the possible income sources from related enterprises they could own and  host - including hotels, attractions (think “American Dream” next to Giants Stadium in New Jersey).  
 

At first, when I was thinking about this possible move - I thought, “maybe this is actually not bad for the city “ imagining a whole new neighborhood on the stadium property 

 

However, in the WTAM interview, Ken said that the land there is classified in such s way that it can’t be sold to developers for condos and hotels, etc.   If I understood that correctly, how could the city really develop much there?  Would it turn into a park area?  That’s my concern - what can actually realistically happen with that site? 
 

If the answer is “not a whole lot” then I’m right back to thinking that the lakefront site is best developed with the stadium as the centerpiece similar to the recent renderings we were shown.  Maybe @KJPor others with greater knowledge can explain the possibilities or limitations on that site for future development. 

Finally, can someone explain why a dome can be built in Brookpark but not downtown? Isn’t that primarily because that’s how Haslam wants it?  Or are there other  financial and/or logistical  dynamics? 

All I keep hearing from the talking heads on these sports podcasts and radio shows is that now the browns can build a dome. Since when did a roof not become an option in Cleveland proper? And since when did the only two options become Brookpark or the lakefront in Downtown Cleveland? Isn't there 1000s of unused acres of land off the opportunity corridor that will likely sit empty for decades? 

On 2/8/2024 at 5:38 PM, B767PILOT said:

This land purchase butressing the airport sounds like a multi hotel development to coincide with a new terminal layout

I agree. CLE is shoehorned into such a small space. They really could use this property for airport use, such as long term parking, rental car facility, hotels, etc.

 

8 hours ago, Geowizical said:

 

Any future stadium would need about 1000'x1000' of lot to fit in, which is roughly what the current stadium sits on. The Muni Lot is only 200' at its WIDEST, immediately bounded by train tracks and then the grade change of the terrain after that. Near impossible.

Back in the 80s, Robert Corona proposed the Hexatron over the rail tracks between Mall C and the shoreway. I believe the seating capacity was around 70,000. I don't know how it could have fit in that space.

 

Jeebus, PD. Why would we all want to be kept informed of breaking news by a blog of "dubious" history?

 

  "If not us, then who?" - John Lewis 

 

 Badge of honor to @KJP

On 2/7/2024 at 11:45 PM, KJP said:

Morning. Just letting the night owls know.

Edited February 10, 20241 yr by DO_Summers

Follow-up discussion on local media coverage of this story should be here

 

 

Absolutely embarrassing piece on their part. Thanks for all you do, @KJP

On 2/8/2024 at 7:01 AM, LlamaLawyer said:

When thinking about these kinds of projects, I like to imagine if the locations were reversed. If the stadium were right now in the Brook Park location, right by the airport, with direct redline access and Haslam announced a desire to move the stadium to the lakefront, how would we feel about that?

 

I think I'd have mixed feelings about that move just like I have mixed feelings about moving from the lakefront to Brook Park. 

 

All that aside, this is a very sensible location in many ways. Right by public transport and right by the airport. Is any other major sports stadium anywhere in the U.S. THAT close to an airport? You could presumably walk from the airport into a domed stadium without ever setting foot outside. That's honestly pretty appealing in the winter.

 

As far as a suburban location goes, I can't think of a better one.

EDIT: also timewise, this would work out great with the proposed renovation of Hopkins. Depending on how nice everyone wants to play with each other, we could have lots of cool integrations between the airport, the stadium, and the stadium district that Haslam presumably wants. That could be a really unique and awesome urban center.

I respectfully disagree. These hermetically sealed built environments, where people can drive and fly into the stadium and not experience any dynamic urbanism are the antithesis of what we should be striving for in a healthy dense urban climate. This will hurt local downtown businesses and sends a message that we learned nothing from the failures of Robert Moses’ vision of modernist America. More sprawl, more carbon emissions, more self-segregation and political polarization.

12 minutes ago, toolivechris said:

I respectfully disagree. These hermetically sealed built environments, where people can drive and fly into the stadium and not experience any dynamic urbanism are the antithesis of what we should be striving for in a healthy dense urban climate. This will hurt local downtown businesses and sends a message that we learned nothing from the failures of Robert Moses’ vision of modernist America. More sprawl, more carbon emissions, more self-segregation and political polarization.

 

Good points. Also having just one RTA stop seems like a huge transit downgrade compared to what we have now, and what is proposed for the Transit Center.

 

Another thing, even though this new parcel is between all these highways unless I'm mistaken there's no precedent for what happens when you try and get a huge crowd of 100k people to this area. At least on the Lakefront you have a ton of routing options. 

18 minutes ago, surfohio said:

Another thing, even though this new parcel is between all these highways unless I'm mistaken there's no precedent for what happens when you try and get a huge crowd of 100k people to this area. At least on the Lakefront you have a ton of routing options. 

Or someone on their way to the airport to catch a flight getting into a huge traffic jam.

2 hours ago, surfohio said:

 

Good points. Also having just one RTA stop seems like a huge transit downgrade compared to what we have now, and what is proposed for the Transit Center.

 

Another thing, even though this new parcel is between all these highways unless I'm mistaken there's no precedent for what happens when you try and get a huge crowd of 100k people to this area. At least on the Lakefront you have a ton of routing options. 

Exactly, for what ever reason, the majority of people think suburbs = low traffic. Downtown=way to much traffic/can't get anywhere. I honestly argue that the 480/271 interchange has some of the worst traffic in NEO during rush hour, easily beating I90 at Dead man's curve. I seriously don't understand how the majority of Browns fans think downtown is difficult to get to for gameday (despite doing it since the 1950s), but an isolated parking lot with 2 entrances from I71 would be an easy in and out commute experience with 70,000 plus cars coming in and out all at once. 

2 hours ago, LibertyBlvd said:

Or someone on their way to the airport to catch a flight getting into a huge traffic jam.

 

which brings to mind, and forgive me, but its really the old locked in airport that needs to move.

 

sorry, i’ll let myself out — and to bed now. 😂

On 2/9/2024 at 8:40 AM, NR said:

I have to bring the below graphic up again because I still think this is by far the best location & idea for all our current stadium needs, the solution for both the Browns and future soccer team(s). It keeps all sports downtown, close together, using up unused areas and would activate that inactive area of the flats. It also would put a lot of owners/teams together in one area, pooling their money and therefore hopefully needing less tax payers dollars. The various government entities that own the land can work out a good deal for the public and teams, it would make a dynamic sports complex in the CBD, much like the Gateway Plaza which would be right next door. However, if Haslam just wanted it for his own stadium and amenities village, I'd be perfectly fine with that as well... let'm buy all that space to build his own village. I believe its the perfect location for the Browns, there is access to the Rail Line to build a station for ease of public transit connections and direct access to the interstate. It would also expand the feel of downtown south of the innerbelt and give a a bigger city feel when on the highway.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this site plan was @KJP's Idea. So Ken, now that you have the whole City, State and half the nation going to your Blogsite and following you're every word, maybe you could write up a story of how this site would work so perfectly for the new stadium. They've mentioned how they are looking at many sites, maybe you can use that to your advantage and give this site some buzz. Hopefully that way we get everyone talking about and pressuring the city to try and do a deal with the Browns for that location and really create a dynamic sports district with all the teams within walking distance of each other.. in the CBD.

 

If needed, maybe @Geowizicalcan do a mock up of what the site could look like too.

While I like this idea in principle, the reality is this is an unrealistic proposal. The first problem is that is a federally owned site. The second is that if you pan 500 feet to the East you will a corrections site. I don’t think it is that easy to move a federal agency and I also don’t think an owner would want his multi-billion dollar development investment to be immediately adjacent to a criminal justice facility.

Edited February 11, 20241 yr by toolivechris

11 hours ago, mrnyc said:

which brings to mind, and forgive me, but its really the old locked in airport that needs to move.

That should have been done 50 years ago. It's too late now. 

 

Edited February 11, 20241 yr by LibertyBlvd

2 hours ago, LibertyBlvd said:

That should have been been done 50 years ago. It's too late now. 

 I think so, too.  The next technological leap in commercial aircraft, however, will probably reduce the need for long runways and make CLE's landlocked status less limiting.

14 hours ago, AsDustinFoxWouldSay said:

Exactly, for what ever reason, the majority of people think suburbs = low traffic. Downtown=way to much traffic/can't get anywhere. I honestly argue that the 480/271 interchange has some of the worst traffic in NEO during rush hour, easily beating I90 at Dead man's curve. I seriously don't understand how the majority of Browns fans think downtown is difficult to get to for gameday (despite doing it since the 1950s), but an isolated parking lot with 2 entrances from I71 would be an easy in and out commute experience with 70,000 plus cars coming in and out all at once. 

I agree with your main point. There are several highways, roads, modes of transportation serving downtown Cleveland which makes it easy for those of us who don't live there to attend Browns games. But for a recent game, coming from the south, we had to take I-90 east to, I think it was 55th Street to get on North Marginal Road in order to get to the stadium parking because of all the road closures. Seemed odd to restrict so many to taking just that one route, but there wasn't a huge amount of traffic to deal to get to the parking lot. Another game I attended, I planned to take I-71 north to W. 150th and take the rapid, but of course the red line in that area was closed at the time.  

Edited February 11, 20241 yr by TMart

4 minutes ago, TMart said:

I agree with your main point. There are several highways, roads, modes of transportation serving downtown Cleveland which makes it easy for those of us who don't live there to attend Browns games. But for a recent game, coming from the south, we had to take I-90 east to, I think it was 55th Street to get on North Marginal Road in order to get to the stadium parking because of all the road closures. Seemed odd to restrict so many to taking just that one route, but there wasn't a huge amount of traffic to deal to get to the parking lot. Another game I attended, I planned to take I-71 north to W. 150th and take the rapid, but of course the red line in that area was closed at the time.  

The circuitous route to E 55th allows both E9th and W3rd to be closed for pedestrians only on the Shoreway overpasses, which is ideal. 

 

I give the Browns props the system they came up with is actually pretty smooth for moving the "high rollers" in and out of those lots that immediately surround the stadium.   IIRC the stadium Director of Operations told me once that they can clear out those lots on a sold out game in under 45 minutes.   Pretty impressive!  

4 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

The circuitous route to E 55th allows both E9th and W3rd to be closed for pedestrians only on the Shoreway overpasses, which is ideal. 

 

I give the Browns props the system they came up with is actually pretty smooth for moving the "high rollers" in and out of those lots that immediately surround the stadium.   IIRC the stadium Director of Operations told me once that they can clear out those lots on a sold out game in under 45 minutes.   Pretty impressive!  

Thanks for providing the reasoning behind it. I was a guest of my nephew for that game. His company provided him with clubs seats and parking for that game. I doubt I'll ever have that "high roller" experience again in my lifetime! 🤣

This post is to help visualize potential stadium locations in Northeast Ohio. The requirements for a pro football stadium are so unique that there are only a handful of locations in the region that could work. To get a (very) general idea on land requirements, a stadium needs ~12-20 acres. An adjacent mixed use development "stadium village" could require a similar amount of land. Any location outside of downtown would require a significant amount of land for parking. A suburban stadium would need over 100 acres of land just for surface parking. Multiple suburban NFL stadiums have over 130 acres of surface parking. The only suburban locations within Cuyahoga County (with nearby highway access) that could potentially meet those land requirements are the Brook Park Ford Engine Plant, undeveloped land off of Rockside Road, or the Highland Park Gold Course. The next closest available land in the region may likely be in Lorain County, some 20 miles west of downtown Cleveland. 

 

Here is a theoretical layout of the three potential suburban stadium locations:

 

 

 

Outside of these three suburban locations there could also be a few options near downtown. The central Post Office location on Broadway may be the most suitable location within the urban core. The lot constraints would likely require the stadium to sit east of E 22nd, a roughly 15 minute walk from the southern edge of downtown. Although the site is relatively isolated (particular by the central interchange with will eventually undergo a substantial rebuild), is has the potential to spur considerable development south of Bedrocks riverfront project. The site also has some of the best transit access in the region with a train every 7.5 minutes, and two high frequency bus routes. Infill Rapid stations could be added at Carnegie/Ontario and E22nd. 

 

 

On 2/9/2024 at 11:32 AM, Luke_S said:

 

I posted over in the Cleveland Soccer thread, but for anyone who hasn't ventured over there, Crain's had an article that the Metroparks would purchase the land from ODOT then lease it to Cleveland Soccer. I liked this location for the Browns stadium before, but I'm liking it more now (assuming the soccer stadium is located here). Ideally the Gateway District's boundaries would be expanded to include these 2 stadiums if it wouldn't already. 

 

Metroparks to be potential intermediary for downtown soccer stadium

I did a quick Photoshop mockup of the area and even at the current stadiums footprint this site would not work without rerouting Orange Avenue and Broadway and that says nothing of the less than desirable next door neighbor.

 

15 minutes ago, NorthShore647 said:

This post is to help visualize potential stadium locations in Northeast Ohio. The requirements for a pro football stadium are so unique that there are only a handful of locations in the region that could work. To get a (very) general idea on land requirements, a stadium needs ~12-20 acres. An adjacent mixed use development "stadium village" could require a similar amount of land. Any location outside of downtown would require a significant amount of land for parking. A suburban stadium would need over 100 acres of land just for surface parking. Multiple suburban NFL stadiums have over 130 acres of surface parking. The only suburban locations within Cuyahoga County (with nearby highway access) that could potentially meet those land requirements are the Brook Park Ford Engine Plant, undeveloped land off of Rockside Road, or the Highland Park Gold Course. The next closest available land in the region may likely be in Lorain County, some 20 miles west of downtown Cleveland. 

 

Each of these sites has there own benefits, but I do not believe any are nearly as impactful to our region as a renovated Lakefront Stadium, with an adjacent mixed use development and ample public space connected to downtown through a Land Bridge and new transit center. We shouldn't need to build a stadium every 30 years. Build on what we already have, and use the Browns/Haslams as leverage to create a meaningful connection between our downtown and lakefront. 

@NorthShore647 can I use inspiration from the proposals to add to my engineering site plans in the works? 

Would there be enough land o the Opportunity Corridor?  If there was, would highway/street access be able to handle game day traffic?

1 minute ago, toolivechris said:

I did a quick Photoshop mockup of the area and even at the current stadiums footprint this site would not work without rerouting Orange Avenue and Broadway and that says nothing of the less than desirable next door neighbor.

 

You can reroute Broadway further south onto the old railyard without much extra fill (maybe a partial retaining wall closer to the rapid tracks). It'll give you between ~750-850ft of space between Orange and the new Broadway just east of E 22nd, enough space for an NFL stadium.