16 minutes 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.

Could a new stadium have a smaller footprint than the current stadium?   Could the less than desirable neighbor be relocated to the Garfield Hts jail site?

 

Edited February 12, 20241 yr by LibertyBlvd

2 minutes ago, cfdwarrior said:

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

 

You could possibly fit a stadium onto the parcel west of E 90th, but you'll still likely need over 100 acres of surface parking. This goes for all locations not within or next to downtown that benefit from the 1000s of existing parking spaces within walking distance not being used around game time. You would also likely have difficulty attracting interest into the type of mixed use development the Haslams want adjacent to the stadium if it was in the middle of the forgotten triangle. 

How about the site of the old CEI plant near Gordon Park?

59 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

Could a new stadium have a smaller footprint than the current stadium?   Could the less than desirable neighbor be relocated to the Garfield Hts jail site?

 

I just think there are too many moving pieces to make this site viable. You would have to have the federal government agree to sell the property, find a new suitable location for the Post Office, build new post office, raze and remediate the site, reroute Broadway which is next to a pretty sizable escarpment immediately to the south, find a new location for the corrections facility, build said facility and then you can start construction on a new stadium with limited space surrounding for mixed use development.

U.S. Postal Service is a federal corporation so property sales don't go through the General Services Administration. Instead, they are bought and sold as commercial properties, same as any other, once the USPS makes the decision to dispose of a property. Examples: https://www.loopnet.com/search/listings/post-offices/usa/for-sale/

 

The Haslams have a purchase option on a site that would make a fine NE Ohio distribution to replace the one downtown, although a new location for the delivery unit would be needed. The USPS already has an auxiliary distribution center at the Chevy Plant in Parma on Brookpark Road. So they don't have to be convinced of the value of relocating to that general area. Not say that's what's planned. But could be possible.

7 minutes ago, NorthShore647 said:

you'll still likely need over 100 acres of surface parking. This goes for all locations not within or next to downtown

 

Sorry for reiterating this a bunch, but it needs to be emphasized when considering a new stadium.

 

For a very broad calculation, lets assume the Haslams want a 70,000 seat stadium that isn't in/adjacent to downtown. If the average car that drives to the stadium has 4 passengers in it, you'll need parking for ~17500 cars. Because football stadiums only host 8-9 homes games a season (plus a handful of stadium concert tours), structured parking is too costly for being used only ~60 hours a year. With surface parking you can roughly fit 150 cars per acre. That is ~117 acres of parking for 70,000 seat stadium. If only ~3 people arrive per car that's over 150 acres of surface parking. 

 

Even with the most generous assumptions (smallest stadium in the NFL, rapid transit connection, ~4 people per car), you'll still need over ~80 acres of surface parking (about the size of South Park Mall and its parking). 

 

The potential Brook Park and Highland sites have enough space for the surface parking. The Rockside site would be a little tight on space, but you could possibly get the surrounding office parks to open up there parking for events (the 49ers have a similar arrangement at their Silcom Valley office park stadium). 

 

These are some rough numbers, but to get an idea of other suburban NFL stadium parking areas in acres: BUF ~120, KC ~137, NE ~125, DC ~160, AZ ~170. 

 

 

TL;DR - Either build ~120 acres of surface parking that gets used < 1% of the year OR just keep the stadium downtown. 

Any site adjacent to a rapid line could easily accommodate thousands of riders without the local parking space. I wonder what the real parking requirement is now. Though the idea of getting the stadium and all that parking demand the hell out of downtown is intriguing.

 

18 minutes ago, Mendo said:

Any site adjacent to a rapid line could easily accommodate thousands of riders without the local parking space. I wonder what the real parking requirement is now. Though the idea of getting the stadium and all that parking demand the hell out of downtown is intriguing.

 

Rapid Transit can certainly help move people out of a small area efficiently, but in a short window of time (like at the end of a football game) capacity isn't that high. NJ Transit can only move 10,000 people per hour out of the Meadowlands. 

 

For a light rail example, the Siemens S200 (RTA's future rolling stock) has a capacity of ~250 per car (60 seats) in its Calgary configuration. A double car S200 leaving every 5 minutes is only about 6000 people per hour (~10 acres of surface parking). An ideal light rail system won't be able to run much more then ~10,000 people per hour in one direction. 

 

 

13 minutes ago, NorthShore647 said:

 

Rapid Transit can certainly help move people out of a small area efficiently, but in a short window of time (like at the end of a football game) capacity isn't that high. NJ Transit can only move 10,000 people per hour out of the Meadowlands. 

 

For a light rail example, the Siemens S200 (RTA's future rolling stock) has a capacity of ~250 per car (60 seats) in its Calgary configuration. A double car S200 leaving every 5 minutes is only about 6000 people per hour (~10 acres of surface parking). An ideal light rail system won't be able to run much more then ~10,000 people per hour in one direction. 

 

Interesting. Definitely not as much as I'd have guessed. That site south of downtown could benefit from people leaving in both directions. Unless they're all just going back downtown to transfer to the Blue/Green lines.

 

Yeah that's too bad. All the more reason football stadiums aren't economic drivers. 

10 minutes ago, Mendo said:

 

Interesting. Definitely not as much as I'd have guessed. That site south of downtown could benefit from people leaving in both directions. Unless they're all just going back downtown to transfer to the Blue/Green lines.

 

Yeah that's too bad. All the more reason football stadiums aren't economic drivers. 

 

its true. if you dont leave the meadowlands during concert encores or before the end of the game, you will likely have to wait for trains. its just an event train route. not only that, but its often switching and waiting at secaucus and an uncomfortable elbow to elbow shmush all the way back to manhattan. sometimes driving is weirdly easier if you can get out early. oof.

2 minutes ago, Mendo said:

Interesting. Definitely not as much as I'd have guessed. That site south of downtown could benefit from people leaving in both directions. Unless they're all just going back downtown to transfer to the Blue/Green lines.

 

Yeah that's too bad. All the more reason football stadiums aren't economic drivers. 

 

Ya in terms of transit access on the existing system, downtown or the trunk line between TC and 55th would be the most ideal location. Highland and Brook Park stadium sites would both be at the end of the line, so only one direction of rail capacity.

 

If/when the Rapid fleet in unified there are more interesting routing options opened up though. For special events the Red, Green and Blue lines could funnel into the Brook Park site, or the Highland site could be served by the existing Blue and the west side of the Red Line. 

9 hours ago, NorthShore647 said:

 

If Browns stadium stayed right where it is - with a virtual rebuild, would it be possible (financially and logistically) for the Haslams to build  a signature tourist-attraction restaurant/club "into" the stadium?

If done right,  it could be novel and unique attraction providing a great view of the field even on non-game days.  Visitors to the Science Center and ROHF would have a secondary attraction to visit after a museum visit.  I don't know how financially lucrative it might be (or not be) but certainly the Haslams could diversify the possible uses of the stadium with some out-of-the-box thinking.  

 

I've long felt that Cleveland really needs an "Inner Harbor" type destination adjacent  to the Rock Hall and Science Center - something for a younger generation that wants as much to shop and dine as they want to look at museum exhibits.  Something to keep tourists in the area longer, spending more money in our city. The more we can diversify the experience on the lakefront for visitors (and residents) - the more powerful the inducement to come down or come back to the lakefront downtown.

And, as more is offered in the immediate area -  the more each individual attraction benefits from the proximity of others tourist destinations.  

 

By the way, if the model posted by @NorthShore647 is ever actually realized - it could be one of the most beautiful fly-over stadium views in the country.  I haven't been a proponent of a lakefront stadium - but I'm trying to imagine it with all the possible benefits it could provide.  I  hope that the attractions just north of the stadium offer retail/dining options in addition to park-like recreational offerings.  (I forget the details of what has been proposed there but remember it emphasizing outdoor recreation - problematic in our current climate.) 

Edited February 13, 20241 yr by CleveFan

So based on the previous posts, it sounds like the only viable options are renovating/rebuilding at the current location or building a new stadium in Brookpark.

 

Edited February 13, 20241 yr by LibertyBlvd

@KJPthe lease is up in '28, so shouldn't this plan be coming together soon? This has been an extremely drawn out process I feel

13 minutes ago, GREGinPARMA said:

@KJPthe lease is up in '28, so shouldn't this plan be coming together soon? This has been an extremely drawn out process I feel

 

If it helps, I know a local station (WKYC?) had an update segment yesterday (can't find the video at the moment) and the guest they brought on said the City is looking to "finalize a deal" by the end of the first quarter if I remember correctly. Don't take my word for it though lol

Edited February 13, 20241 yr by Geowizical

28 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

So it sounds like the only options are renovating/rebuilding at the current location or building a new stadium in Brookpark.

I don't know about only, but those do seem to be the two most likely options. 

 

20 hours 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. 

 

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. 

 

 

 

I haven't seen this in as many words, but WOW! This is a fantastic post! Bravo! I appreciate your graphics and your insistence about the reality of surface parking.

 

Continuing on the above, Highland doesn't seem likely because it isn't that near a highway, would require replacing current green space, and basically requires extending a train line. That's a lot of political will, moving parts, and a possible Nimby nightmare, it's just too much work for the potential benefit. 

 

Rockside is plausible. I've said before, and I'd stick to it, the independence area is as accessible to suburban commuters as downtown. The location is good. I appreciate the site layout, and if business are willing to sell their parking spaces, parking won't be an issue. (though that's definitely an if). 

 

Personally, I think the Broadway proposal is the best location, but I don't think it's particularly likely. It just also has a lot of moving parts. It requires moving a road (and likely a trail), the post office, adding in infill rail stations, and while there's a lot of parking nearish, it still leaves most people walking quite a distance from most of the parking in the downtown core. (Not an issue for me, but I'm sure it will be for some).

 

That leaves Brook Park and downtown. There's not much space downtown, so the only options are the current location, knocking some stuff down (perhaps in the vicinity of Noble Beast), the location I suggested a bit upthread, and (I don't like this idea, nor am I sure if it's even possible, just throwing it out for completeness) north of Burke in that open space (it also probably can't be domed). I don't think any location in the downtown core is at all likely outside of where it is currently.

 

I am increasingly feeling that if the Browns move the lakefront land bridge and any development to go with it is likely dead. If that feeling is correct, than I am 100% in favor of renovating the current location. Sure it would be better without a stadium there, but I'm concerned that if we let the perfect be the enemy of the good we'll just get nothing. 

16 minutes ago, Ethan said:

I don't know about only, but those do seem to be the two most likely options. 

 

 

I haven't seen this in as many words, but WOW! This is a fantastic post! Bravo! I appreciate your graphics and your insistence about the reality of surface parking.

 

Continuing on the above, Highland doesn't seem likely because it isn't that near a highway, would require replacing current green space, and basically requires extending a train line. That's a lot of political will, moving parts, and a possible Nimby nightmare, it's just too much work for the potential benefit. 

 

Rockside is plausible. I've said before, and I'd stick to it, the independence area is as accessible to suburban commuters as downtown. The location is good. I appreciate the site layout, and if business are willing to sell their parking spaces, parking won't be an issue. (though that's definitely an if). 

 

Personally, I think the Broadway proposal is the best location, but I don't think it's particularly likely. It just also has a lot of moving parts. It requires moving a road (and likely a trail), the post office, adding in infill rail stations, and while there's a lot of parking nearish, it still leaves most people walking quite a distance from most of the parking in the downtown core. (Not an issue for me, but I'm sure it will be for some).

 

That leaves Brook Park and downtown. There's not much space downtown, so the only options are the current location, knocking some stuff down (perhaps in the vicinity of Noble Beast), the location I suggested a bit upthread, and (I don't like this idea, nor am I sure if it's even possible, just throwing it out for completeness) north of Burke in that open space (it also probably can't be domed). I don't think any location in the downtown core is at all likely outside of where it is currently.

 

I am increasingly feeling that if the Browns move the lakefront land bridge and any development to go with it is likely dead. If that feeling is correct, than I am 100% in favor of renovating the current location. Sure it would be better without a stadium there, but I'm concerned that if we let the perfect be the enemy of the good we'll just get nothing. 

 

Just a couple quick thoughts;

 

(1) Rockside is already congested, you add gameday traffic and I think it will be a nightmare to get anywhere in that area. 

 

(2) The walking distance to the Broadway location shouldn't be too much of an issue IMO. People are already walking a comparable distance, either from downtown or the munilot to get to the stadium.

Edited February 13, 20241 yr by Luke_S

1 hour ago, Ethan said:

I don't know about only, but those do seem to be the two most likely options. 

I meant the only viable options.

 

1 hour ago, Luke_S said:

 Rockside is already congested, you add gameday traffic and I think it will be a nightmare to get anywhere in that area. 

I'm guessing there would be NIMBY issues with he Independence site as it would be close to residential areas. And nature lovers would not be happy about clearing out a wooded area.

 

Edited February 13, 20241 yr by LibertyBlvd

46 minutes ago, GREGinPARMA said:

@KJPthe lease is up in '28, so shouldn't this plan be coming together soon? This has been an extremely drawn out process I feel

 

Yes, it absolutely should! That's why the Haslams are pursuing options in addition to renovating the lakefront stadium.

 

BTW, @NorthShore647 I greatly appreciate those wonderful site concepts you put together. The amount of detail and forethought that went into those was impressive!!

Just now, KJP said:

 

Yes, it absolutely should! That's why the Haslams are pursuing options in addition to renovating the lakefront stadium.

Exactly. Aren't most of the problems with the current stadium because it was built hastily? If things don't get settled soon, they'll be looking at the same scenario of doing a rush job. 

 

I still think the best site would be the Lakeside Ave area east of E. 12 St. Is there absolutely no way it could happen there?

16 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

The walking distance to the Broadway location shouldn't be too much of an issue IMO. People are already walking a comparable distance, either from downtown or the munilot to get to the stadium.

Soft disagree. There's several parking garages within a fifteen minute walk of the current stadium, and basically none within a fifteen minute range of the Broadway location. There are only a couple within a twenty minute walk. I'm confident the average walk to parking will be at least a few minutes longer. Do I think that should disqualify it, absolutely not! (Most Americans could do with some more walking tbh...) As I said, I think it's the best option. But I do think this will be a problem for others. 

 

Great points! 

1 hour ago, Geowizical said:

 

If it helps, I know a local station (WKYC?) had an update segment yesterday (can't find the video at the moment) and the guest they brought on said the City is looking to "finalize a deal" by the end of the first quarter if I remember correctly. Don't take my word for it though lol

Here is the link on YouTube 

 

And here is Jim Donovan's take on a new stadium:

 

https://www.wkyc.com/article/sports/nfl/browns/jimmys-take-new-stadium-cleveland-browns-jim-donovan/95-30570472-9d22-4225-b87c-71cff1cea7e1

1 hour ago, TMart said:

I still think the best site would be the Lakeside Ave area east of E. 12 St. Is there absolutely no way it could happen there?

All the properties in that area would need to be acquired and the structures demolished, which would likely be a costly and time consuming process.

All the properties in that area would need to be acquired and the structures demolished, which would likely be a costly and time consuming process.

Yeah, and they would likely have been demolished by now if the Haslams had gotten it their way. Instead, two years later they find themselves owning tons of acres in Brookpark lol bummer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Who did this?! 😂

On 2/13/2024 at 1:33 PM, GREGinPARMA said:

Yeah, and they would likely have been demolished by now if the Haslams had gotten it their way. Instead, two years later they find themselves owning tons of acres in Brookpark lol bummer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Not even close.  Acquiring dozens upon dozens of properties with different owners would take many, many years.  Eventually, ED would have to be employed, but that's no quick process, either.  The "Eastside of Downtown" idea a couple of people are pushing was never a realistic or good idea.

Crains just posted an article on line about the Haslams and the "blueprint" they are following for the Browns stadium.  Hopefully somebody on the forum can summarize the article for us.   I am still being blocked from reading articles despite my Library membership which usually lets me read articles for free.

17 hours ago, Luke_S said:

Who did this?! 😂

I never have been able to wrap my head around why a cloverleaf wasn't built there instead of that mess...

7 minutes ago, Htsguy said:

Crains just posted an article on line about the Haslams and the "blueprint" they are following for the Browns stadium.  Hopefully somebody on the forum can summarize the article for us.   I am still being blocked from reading articles despite my Library membership which usually lets me read articles for free.

Said article….

https://www.crainscleveland.com/sports-recreation/haslams-believe-new-stadium-could-be-transformational

1 minute ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

Said article….

https://www.crainscleveland.com/sports-recreation/haslams-believe-new-stadium-could-be-transformational

Thank you but still cannot read it.

Just now, Htsguy said:

Thank you but still cannot read it.

Posting for others as I can also not read 

I had no trouble reading it. It's a good article, no new bombs, but it has some interesting tidbits from anonymous sources, mostly on how the Haslams are thinking. Some good discussion of the (lack of) merits for public funding of stadiums. 

Kudos to Crain's. This is how you follow up on someone else's reporting. 

 

At this point, renovating the stadium doesn't make sense to me. Where would they play while the stadium is getting gutted? We talked about Columbus. Could they do "home" games in Detroit or Buffalo? Doesn't seem like a good idea. If they built a new stadium somewhere else, they can stay in the current stadium until it's done. The city would surely extend their lease if they needed more time.

 

I can see why they bought the Brook Park land. If there is nowhere else available to them in the city, it seems like a no brainer. EDIT: I should clarify, no brainer for them. I would prefer any positive, transformational visions taking place in the city, though.

Edited February 15, 20241 yr by coneflower

Just now, coneflower said:

At this point, renovating the stadium doesn't make sense to me. Where would they play while the stadium is getting gutted? We talked about Columbus. Could they do "home" games in Detroit or Buffalo? Doesn't seem like a good idea. If they built a new stadium somewhere else, they can stay in the current stadium until it's done. The city would surely extend their lease if they needed more time.

Hopefully. the Browns will be participants in the post-season for the foreseeable future. It would be rather disheartening if they had to play "home" post-season games elsewhere.

I'm curious how much more of their own money the Haslams are willing to put into the Brook Park location. The overall price tag will be much higher, so even if a lower percentage of the money comes from public funds it could still be more public money overall. Not to mention, which public agencies are footing this bill? Cleveland shouldn't give a cent if it isn't in their jurisdiction, and I'm sure Brook Park doesn't have enough funds to make a dent. 

 

Even if the Haslams are paying 100% of the stadium costs, based on @NorthShore647graphic, significant infrastructure changes/upgrades are required. That's additional public cost that needs to be accounted for

 

All that said, if the total amount of money from taxpayers ends up being less for building new at Brook Park I would find it hard to justify opposing the project. I think that is extremely unlikely to be the case though. The cheapest option for the taxpayers will almost certainly be renovation. Perhaps the State and County should just make it clear that they will only contribute x% of the money to Renovate the existing system, any funds beyond that will have be the responsibility of the private sector, and that includes any necessary infrastructure changes.

Several people have stated that the Brookpark land allows Haslam to control the entire site and development, which makes a lot of sense- I could see that.  Others have said, that they heard the Brookpark land was not for a football use.  I wonder if the Brookpark land is intended as a landing spot for a USPS distribution center, thus freeing up their land on Orange Ave.?  Or perhaps as part of some other land swap deal in order to free up space closer to downtown?  Maybe building in Brookpark is only their last resort if all else fails?

This is only sort of related to the Browns Stadium, but the KC Royals just announced they are building a new downtown ballpark.  It's relevant because the project is next to a highway and includes a cap over the highway, i.e. a land bridge!

 

https://fox4kc.com/sports/royals/kansas-city-royals-pick-crossroads-site-for-new-stadium-release-renderings/

 

https://fox4kc.com/business/south-loop-link-park-could-boost-kansas-city-economy-study/

On 2/12/2024 at 4:32 PM, NorthShore647 said:

 

Sorry for reiterating this a bunch, but it needs to be emphasized when considering a new stadium.

 

For a very broad calculation, lets assume the Haslams want a 70,000 seat stadium that isn't in/adjacent to downtown. If the average car that drives to the stadium has 4 passengers in it, you'll need parking for ~17500 cars. Because football stadiums only host 8-9 homes games a season (plus a handful of stadium concert tours), structured parking is too costly for being used only ~60 hours a year. With surface parking you can roughly fit 150 cars per acre. That is ~117 acres of parking for 70,000 seat stadium. If only ~3 people arrive per car that's over 150 acres of surface parking. 

 

Even with the most generous assumptions (smallest stadium in the NFL, rapid transit connection, ~4 people per car), you'll still need over ~80 acres of surface parking (about the size of South Park Mall and its parking). 

 

The potential Brook Park and Highland sites have enough space for the surface parking. The Rockside site would be a little tight on space, but you could possibly get the surrounding office parks to open up there parking for events (the 49ers have a similar arrangement at their Silcom Valley office park stadium). 

 

These are some rough numbers, but to get an idea of other suburban NFL stadium parking areas in acres: BUF ~120, KC ~137, NE ~125, DC ~160, AZ ~170. 

 

 

TL;DR - Either build ~120 acres of surface parking that gets used < 1% of the year OR just keep the stadium downtown. 

 

Thanks for the info on the amount of parking required.  Those numbers are crazy.  If the lakefront would definitely be redeveloped and the land bridge built, my first choice would be the Broadway option.  If the lakefront and land bridge are inextricably linked to having the stadium there, I think just renovating would be best for the region.

 

But I do also like the Brook Park option and think it has a few things going for it:

 

1.  There are a bunch of existing surface parking lots around the Brook Park site.  They're intended for airport customers, but I'm sure some are underutilized or will become marginalized with improved parking as part of the airport master plan implementation.  I don't know how realistic it would be to rely on shuttling stadium patrons on gamedays, but the entire rental car lot north of 480 should become available as well.
2.  I do think having the rapid connection can allow for less surface parking, even if rail struggles with gameday congestion.  Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara is transit-connected and has "only" like 70 acres of surface parking.  Brook Park could also have an Amtrak station, which I think would be very popular for daytripping from the rest of the state (assuming 3C+D happens), and not add to parking demand.  Same with the (presumably much smaller) fly-in crowd that comes straight from the airport.
3.  If the Haslams are planning a "village", that should hopefully include some multi-use garage parking, which should cut down on the amount of surface parking needed.  Obviously if the garages are residential, it would be impossible to count on it for gameday parking, but if there's office and retail that should be able to serve gameday crowds.

 

In response to comments that this location is contributing to sprawl, I'd counter that we should be encouraging development in this area.  I believe it's the 3rd largest employment center in the county, and with NASA and Hopkins it should remain vital to the region indefinitely, and somewhat insulated from the effects of WFH.  Ohio Aerospace Institute and Aerozone Alliance have been doing a lot of work over the last couple of years to attract businesses and its starting to pay off with companies like Blue Abyss.  Having the Browns stadium would spur even more development, which would help the area and hopefully help revitalize the west side neighborhoods and the western side of the Red Line.

So I went to Google Maps just now and the Brookpark site is already labeled "Future Cleveland Browns Stadium".  That's hilarious.

The other thing is, all these "amazing bars and restaurants" the likes of the 92.3 hosts are gushing over. Sure at first there would be a novelty. However how would this be sustainable long term after the shine wears off? What is going to make their business plan unique? How would this not just cannibalize the other mixed use suburban projects and then we are talking about the likes of Crocker Park and Pinecrest as dated and past their time in the same way these places did this to the older malls and urban areas? A suburban football stadium with 10-12 events per year surrounded by asphalt sounds like a disaster of a business plan. You could point to the proximity of the airport but this is no longer a hub where waves of people from all over the region and beyond are driving in to stay overnight to fly to far flung destinations.  

 

Lambeau Field has a convention center and an arena across the street plus it's generally a much more historical venue, Packers training camp in the Proximity. Patriot Place has two major tenants in a much bigger metro area. Ballpark Village in St. Louis is right Downtown near offices, the Arch, arena, main transit hub. Battery in Atlanta has corporate HQs for huge companies on its doorstep. Inglewood, Arlington etc etc. These sports orientated developments still don't just rely on a few games a year to fuel them.

 

Jimmy can cough up the 2.5-3bn himself if this is what he wants.

 

3 hours ago, acd said:

 

Thanks for the info on the amount of parking required.  Those numbers are crazy.  If the lakefront would definitely be redeveloped and the land bridge built, my first choice would be the Broadway option.  If the lakefront and land bridge are inextricably linked to having the stadium there, I think just renovating would be best for the region.

 

But I do also like the Brook Park option and think it has a few things going for it:

 

1.  There are a bunch of existing surface parking lots around the Brook Park site.  They're intended for airport customers, but I'm sure some are underutilized or will become marginalized with improved parking as part of the airport master plan implementation.  I don't know how realistic it would be to rely on shuttling stadium patrons on gamedays, but the entire rental car lot north of 480 should become available as well.
2.  I do think having the rapid connection can allow for less surface parking, even if rail struggles with gameday congestion.  Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara is transit-connected and has "only" like 70 acres of surface parking.  Brook Park could also have an Amtrak station, which I think would be very popular for daytripping from the rest of the state (assuming 3C+D happens), and not add to parking demand.  Same with the (presumably much smaller) fly-in crowd that comes straight from the airport.
3.  If the Haslams are planning a "village", that should hopefully include some multi-use garage parking, which should cut down on the amount of surface parking needed.  Obviously if the garages are residential, it would be impossible to count on it for gameday parking, but if there's office and retail that should be able to serve gameday crowds.

 

In response to comments that this location is contributing to sprawl, I'd counter that we should be encouraging development in this area.  I believe it's the 3rd largest employment center in the county, and with NASA and Hopkins it should remain vital to the region indefinitely, and somewhat insulated from the effects of WFH.  Ohio Aerospace Institute and Aerozone Alliance have been doing a lot of work over the last couple of years to attract businesses and its starting to pay off with companies like Blue Abyss.  Having the Browns stadium would spur even more development, which would help the area and hopefully help revitalize the west side neighborhoods and the western side of the Red Line.

Ohio Aerospace, NASA, Aerozone are all in BrookPark and have no relation to Cleveland proper whatsoever. BrookPark got an absolute steal from that mistake of a deal by Mike White. As a result, Cleveland needs the Browns and that kind development waaaay more than Brook Park does. Brook Park isn't going to help revitalize Cleveland's west side neighborhoods. 

1 hour ago, snakebite said:

The other thing is, all these "amazing bars and restaurants" the likes of the 92.3 hosts are gushing over. Sure at first there would be a novelty. However how would this be sustainable long term after the shine wears off? What is going to make their business plan unique? How would this not just cannibalize the other mixed use suburban projects and then we are talking about the likes of Crocker Park and Pinecrest as dated and past their time in the same way these places did this to the older malls and urban areas? A suburban football stadium with 10-12 events per year surrounded by asphalt sounds like a disaster of a business plan. You could point to the proximity of the airport but this is no longer a hub where waves of people from all over the region and beyond are driving in to stay overnight to fly to far flung destinations.  

 

Lambeau Field has a convention center and an arena across the street plus it's generally a much more historical venue, Packers training camp in the Proximity. Patriot Place has two major tenants in a much bigger metro area. Ballpark Village in St. Louis is right Downtown near offices, the Arch, arena, main transit hub. Battery in Atlanta has corporate HQs for huge companies on its doorstep. Inglewood, Arlington etc etc. These sports orientated developments still don't just rely on a few games a year to fuel them.

 

Jimmy can cough up the 2.5-3bn himself if this is what he wants.

 

Not to mention Atlanta has both a rapidly expanding metro and city proper. Cleveland on the other hand continues to lose major entities inside it's central business district. 

9 minutes ago, AsDustinFoxWouldSay said:

Not to mention Atlanta has both a rapidly expanding metro and city proper. Cleveland on the other hand continues to lose major entities inside it's central business district. 

 

Have you ummm... Have you ever been to Atlanta? 

3 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

 

Have you ummm... Have you ever been to Atlanta? 

Yes it's huge

Crains just posted an article on line about the Haslams and the "blueprint" they are following for the Browns stadium.  Hopefully somebody on the forum can summarize the article for us.   I am still being blocked from reading articles despite my Library membership which usually lets me read articles for free.

Quote from the article sums it up completely.

"We're not leaving Northeastern Ohio, OK? That's for sure. Our preference is to be on the lakefront, but you've got to see how things play out."

Sent from my Pixel 8 Pro using Tapatalk

7 minutes ago, MyPhoneDead said:

Quote from the article sums it up completely.

"We're not leaving Northeastern Ohio, OK? That's for sure. Our preference is to be on the lakefront, but you've got to see how things play out."

Sent from my Pixel 8 Pro using Tapatalk
 

 

That's what Jimmy said last summer. 

I'm going to keep deleting ad hominem attacks on locals here. Not much of a value add... 

19 hours ago, coneflower said:

Kudos to Crain's. This is how you follow up on someone else's reporting. 

 

At this point, renovating the stadium doesn't make sense to me. Where would they play while the stadium is getting gutted? We talked about Columbus. Could they do "home" games in Detroit or Buffalo? Doesn't seem like a good idea. If they built a new stadium somewhere else, they can stay in the current stadium until it's done. The city would surely extend their lease if they needed more time.

 

I can see why they bought the Brook Park land. If there is nowhere else available to them in the city, it seems like a no brainer. EDIT: I should clarify, no brainer for them. I would prefer any positive, transformational visions taking place in the city, though.

 

Jacobs Field (I refuse to call it the other name) has been renovated several times without interrupting the schedule.

2 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

Jacobs Field (I refuse to call it the other name) has been renovated several times without interrupting the schedule.

An excellent point.   If there is time to plan, certainly major renovation to CBS could be carried out over the course of a couple seasons.   But this would take finding a consensus early and not waiting to the last minute to scramble and make it happen.