There was a plan years ago for a retractable roof to be installed over the already existing CBS after it's construction completed.  Why couldn't that happen now?

55 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

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. 

Problem is that reports say that it cant have a roof put on it because its built on a landfll and that to remodel it they would have to take it down to the studs...  no way you play through that. 

More

 

Is 50% better than most team owners offer?

 

https://signalcleveland.org/browns-pitched-cleveland-city-council-on-1-billion-stadium-renovation-members-say/

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A shame it is always Cleveland/Cuyahoga County residents paying for the sports venues.  It would be nice to get folks in the surrounding counties to pony up for a change.

 

Edited February 16, 20241 yr by LibertyBlvd

There was more private money given in % for the Crew Stadium and the Haslams spent a bunch on the Bucks. They can pony up more. I don't want a 50/50 split.

 

Haslams keep options open for Brook Park site
By Ken Prendergast / February 16, 2024

 

NEOtrans’ scoop last week that the owners of the Cleveland Browns are reportedly buying a 176-acre parcel in suburban Brook Park led to a flurry of discussion about what that means since the sources didn’t say why. The most obvious speculation is that the land is for a new stadium venue for home games for the National Football League franchise. But that may be only partly true. Instead, one option is to apparently use it as part of a land trade for a stadium.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2024/02/16/haslams-keep-options-open-for-brook-park-site/

12 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

Haslams keep options open for Brook Park site
By Ken Prendergast / February 16, 2024

 

NEOtrans’ scoop last week that the owners of the Cleveland Browns are reportedly buying a 176-acre parcel in suburban Brook Park led to a flurry of discussion about what that means since the sources didn’t say why. The most obvious speculation is that the land is for a new stadium venue for home games for the National Football League franchise. But that may be only partly true. Instead, one option is to apparently use it as part of a land trade for a stadium.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2024/02/16/haslams-keep-options-open-for-brook-park-site/

Yup, these were the rumors I was hearing from a coworker that this land was not for the statdium.

The Post Office site is the sweet spot for a stadium in NEO. It's just close enough to Downtown without it being in too central of a spot that renders it to be a waste of land. Reminds me of Pittsburgh, Seattle etc. Of course the USPS being on the doorstep of the airport logistically is a no brainer. Gerritdun.

Edited February 16, 20241 yr by snakebite

55 minutes ago, GREGinPARMA said:

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Honestly not as bad as I thought. Remember the bills are getting an open air stadium for 1.4billion and tax payers are paying $850million. 

Those in-fill RTA stations in the renderings would also be nice for Guardians games. I would love if something like this proposal came to fruition! It could really activate that area of downtown, while still allowing for tailgating and restaurant visits ahead of the game in the center of downtown. And the 3-Line Rapid access would be amazing too!

Curious how much they’d ask the city to chip in for a new stadium at the usps site. 
 

if the Bibb’s priority is to have them on the lakefront is that because he knows it’ll be cheaper or because he thinks it’ll help draw folks to the development but you’d think the lake access would be enough  

 

so right now haslems options are spend 500m on renovating the city owned stadium or spend like 1-2b on a state of the art ground up facility with a village owned by them 

Edited February 16, 20241 yr by BoomerangCleRes

This is a best case scenario, IMO.

-  The Browns stay  in the city of Cleveland and benefit downtown businesses because the stadium is so close.
-  It, in effect extends downtown southward.
- It creates an opportunity for a new lakefront - hopefully with “real” development. 
- It allows for maximum use of mass transportation from all sides  of Greater Cleveland. 
- It could create a sports “central complex” where Soccer and CSU sports are also housed. 
- It ensures that Browns  games don’t have to be played in Columbus or elsewhere during a transition. 
-It creates space for a ballpark village that could become another downtown tourist attraction 
- Financially, though some on this forum won’t like anything but 100% of costs paid by the Haslams - it seems “doable”. 
- It actually benefits USPS based on Ken’s reporting 

- It probably somewhat minimizes the winter wind effect of being literally on the lakefront. 
 

And just think, plenty of national TV flyover shots of our growing downtown still in play. 
Thanks @KJPfor the exciting scoop. 

Edited February 16, 20241 yr by CleveFan

could still tailgate the muni and take the blue line to the stadium 

1 minute ago, Whipjacka said:

could still tailgate the muni and take the blue line to the stadium 

That would be a rowdy ride, also a great way to get ridership up

Edited February 16, 20241 yr by BoomerangCleRes

35 minutes ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

Curious how much they’d ask the city to chip in for a new stadium at the usps site. 
 

if the Bibb’s priority is to have them on the lakefront is that because he knows it’ll be cheaper or because he thinks it’ll help draw folks to the development but you’d think the lake access would be enough  

 

so right now haslems options are spend 500m on renovating the city owned stadium or spend like 1-2b on a state of the art ground up facility with a village owned by them 

I'm wondering the same thing, assuming it's a 50/50 split on a billion dollar remodel, who picks up the extra billion dollars if it's instead a new build? The Browns or the taxpayers? Or does the 50/50 split continue? 

Just now, Whipjacka said:

could still tailgate the muni and take the blue line to the stadium 

Actually, I'd like to think that moving the stadium will allow the muni lots to be developed. Build structured parking with lake view apartments above. No need for tailgating space. 

I don't think the browns are the force preventing structured parking at the municipal lot

2 minutes ago, Growth Mindset said:

Actually, I'd like to think that moving the stadium will allow the muni lots to be developed. Build structured parking with lake view apartments above. No need for tailgating space. 

 regardless of the browns stadium outcome those lots will be developed just not that soon it was talked about during the lakefront master plan meetings 

So the lakefront master plan will need to be revised due to the additional available space. And I assume the land bridge and shoreway reconfiguration would be less urgent with no stadium on the lakefront.

 

Edited February 16, 20241 yr by LibertyBlvd

I just looked up the proposed downtown loop from a few years back, and it really would fit perfectly with this stadium location.  In addition to picking up more of the lakefront, Playhouse Square, and CSU, the southeast side would now meet up with the red/blue/green lines right at the stadium village next to the stadium and pick up the new soccer stadium as well.  Plus the USPS building would have to be demolished in this stadium scenario, allowing a blank slate design for that part of the track.  (screenshot of @Boomerang_Brian's downtown loop map)

 

5 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

So the lakefront master plan will need to be revised due to the additional available space. And I wonder if the land bridge and shoreway reconfiguration would be less urgent with no stadium on the lakefront?

 

Which honestly I hope when Bibb releases his vision/the results of the studies for the lakefront at the end of this quarter it reflects both having the stadium and not

3 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

So the lakefront master plan will need to be re-revised due to the additional available space. And I wonder if the land bridge and shoreway reconfiguration would be less urgent with no stadium on the lakefront?

 

Hopefully if we're going to kick in ~$1 billion for a new stadium, the city/county make lakefront improvements and stadium demolition a required part of the deal.  Columbus put up money to renovate the Crew's old stadium as part of the deal for the new one.  Maybe Cleveland can roll the cost of lakefront improvements into the package for the new stadium.

9 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

So the lakefront master plan will need to be revised due to the additional available space. And I assume the land bridge and shoreway reconfiguration would be less urgent with no stadium on the lakefront.

 

 

I think there's a good chance the layout of the lakefront plan between the 60 and 90% stages will remain pretty much the same. Should the stadium move, my guess is they would just set the old stadium land aside for additional low/mid-rise residences and tie into the rest of the new recreational form instead of drastically revising the entire plan.

3 minutes ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

Which honestly I hope when Bibb releases his vision/the results of the studies for the lakefront at the end of this quarter it reflects both having the stadium and not

 

Great point. In either case I hope we'll be seeing a better ideas for W. 3rd/Erieside Ave.  I'm not sure what can be done to remake that stretch to be integrated with the urban fabric, but it even in renderings it looks desolate, auto-centric, disconnected, anti-urban and wholly uninteresting. 

9 minutes ago, Geowizical said:

 

I think there's a good chance the layout of the lakefront plan between the 60 and 90% stages will remain pretty much the same. Should the stadium move, my guess is they would just set the old stadium land aside for additional low/mid-rise residences and tie into the rest of the new recreational form instead of drastically revising the entire plan.

... Because the City has never thrown away a perfectly good lakefront plan to start again from step 1.

 

Hopefully you're right though. There's no reason the City couldn't/shouldn't keep the existing plan and just fill in the gap. 

@KJP  any idea how much of the Brookpark site USPS will occupy if they move there?  Will there be space remaining for airport related use such as rental car facility, long-term parking, hotel, etc?

1 hour ago, Ethan said:

... Because the City has never thrown away a perfectly good lakefront plan to start again from step 1.

 

Hopefully you're right though. There's no reason the City couldn't/shouldn't keep the existing plan and just fill in the gap. 

Well, maybe they could spread things out a little more so it's not so cluttered.  Or perhaps something envisioned in the master plan might be more suitable in the space currently occupied by the stadium.

 

Edited February 16, 20241 yr by LibertyBlvd

1 hour ago, CleveFan said:

This is a best case scenario, IMO.

-  The Browns stay  in the city of Cleveland and benefit downtown businesses because the stadium is so close.
-  It, in effect extends downtown southward.
- It creates an opportunity for a new lakefront - hopefully with “real” development. 
- It allows for maximum use of mass transportation from all sides  of Greater Cleveland. 
- It could create a sports “central complex” where Soccer and CSU sports are also housed. 
- It ensures that Browns  games don’t have to be played in Columbus or elsewhere during a transition. 
-It creates space for a ballpark village that could become another downtown tourist attraction 
- Financially, though some on this forum won’t like anything but 100% of costs paid by the Haslams - it seems “doable”. 
- It actually benefits USPS based on Ken’s reporting 

- It probably somewhat minimizes the winter wind effect of being literally on the lakefront. 
 

And just think, plenty of national TV flyover shots of our growing downtown still in play. 
Thanks @KJPfor the exciting scoop. 

The only detriment here is the City of Cleveland would lose the 2.5% city of Cleveland Income taxes on all of USPS employees to Brook Park.

Maybe they could negotiate some 50/50 split on the income tax withholdings between Cleveland/Brook Park

5 minutes ago, simplythis said:

The only detriment here is the City of Cleveland would lose the 2.5% city of Cleveland Income taxes on all of USPS employees to Brook Park.

Maybe they could negotiate some 50/50 split on the income tax withholdings between Cleveland/Brook Park

Any idea how many are employed there?  City is also losing income tax for employees of SHW research center, Medical Mutual, county jail and maybe others that I am forgetting.  

I like this version because it keeps the team downtown although my preferred location is just south of the muny lots but nevermind.

 

The only drawback l can see is it will take more time because first a new post office needs to built in Brookpark, then the old one comes down, then the new stadium is built. That whole scenario might add a year or so on top of whatever time it takes to build a stadium. 

 

At any rate l hope this idea can be pulled off. Once this gets the greenlight we can all argue about costs, design etc. Should be fun.

 

29 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

@KJP  any idea how much of the Brookpark site USPS will occupy if they move there?  Will there be space remaining for airport related use such as rental car facility, long-term parking, hotel, etc?

 

The current site can be constrained with trucks during peak periods -- even with the auxiliary facility at the Chevy plant. So I would suspect something well above the current 50 acres. Probably 75-100 acres.

 

12 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

Any idea how many are employed there?  City is also losing income tax for employees of SHW research center, Medical Mutual, county jail and maybe others that I am forgetting.  

 

Last I'd heard is that there were more than 1,000 people working there. The cities could work out a revenue-sharing deal.

https://signalcleveland.org/browns-pitched-cleveland-city-council-on-1-billion-stadium-renovation-members-say/
 

This process seems extra screwy to me. 

2 hours ago, acd said:

I just looked up the proposed downtown loop from a few years back, and it really would fit perfectly with this stadium location.  In addition to picking up more of the lakefront, Playhouse Square, and CSU, the southeast side would now meet up with the red/blue/green lines right at the stadium village next to the stadium and pick up the new soccer stadium as well.  Plus the USPS building would have to be demolished in this stadium scenario, allowing a blank slate design for that part of the track.  (screenshot of @Boomerang_Brian's downtown loop map)

 

I like the Huron / Euclid / East 22nd subway proposal way better! This could be compatible with a new RTA station to serve that stadium location by moving the proposed stadium station a bit to the east (presumable closing the existing, useless, “Tri-C” station). It would also be compatible with a CVSR station, although it would be a longer walk between Rapid and CVSR train platforms. The problem with the Loop concept is that it takes way too long to get around downtown and it misses the CBD on East 9th. Just look at these awesome 5 minute walk circles. 

 

instead of losing it, cant they put a stadium just south of the post office facility?

 

there is much more room and there is nothing there anymore but truck pallet storage and a concrete plant.

 

or maybe that isnt a good site, like i take the cost and terrain would not be ideal?

 

i dk, i think it drops into the valley there, but if not its practically wide open land adjacent to the usps site. 🤷‍♂️

But this mini bomb, wrapped in a big bomb. 

“ That extension is the subject of a study that officially got underway this week by the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency, global engineering firm AECOM and Chema’s Gateway Consultants Group.”

1 hour ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

I like the Huron / Euclid / East 22nd subway proposal way better! This could be compatible with a new RTA station to serve that stadium location by moving the proposed stadium station a bit to the east (presumable closing the existing, useless, “Tri-C” station). It would also be compatible with a CVSR station, although it would be a longer walk between Rapid and CVSR train platforms. The problem with the Loop concept is that it takes way too long to get around downtown and it misses the CBD on East 9th. Just look at these awesome 5 minute walk circles. 

 

I forgot about that one. It is much better.  It’s still hits all the important spots + the CBD and would be much faster.  The walk to the lakefront from here is also more manageable if there’s a land bridge + there would still be the Waterfront line by rail, it just would require a transfer.

2 hours ago, mrnyc said:

instead of losing it, cant they put a stadium just south of the post office facility?

 

there is much more room and there is nothing there anymore but truck pallet storage and a concrete plant.

 

or maybe that isnt a good site, like i take the cost and terrain would not be ideal?

 

i dk, i think it drops into the valley there, but if not its practically wide open land adjacent to the usps site. 🤷‍♂️

There's the Transport Rd site that was considered for the new jail, but I don't know if it would be suitable for a stadium.

 

Edited February 17, 20241 yr by LibertyBlvd

4 minutes ago, acd said:

I forgot about that one. It is much better.  It’s still hits all the important spots + the CBD and would be much faster.  The walk to the lakefront from here is also more manageable if there’s a land bridge + there would still be the Waterfront line by rail, it just would require a transfer.

Wouldn’t even need a transfer! With the RTA going to a single fleet of high floor light rail vehicles, all routes could use this new subway. Red Line to/from west side and airport, and Shaker Lines continuing directly through the Waterfront Line. (Or a Shaker Line directly through to the airport)

If they went with the USPS site, who would pay for site acquisition ( which would be expensive ) and demolition?

So I've said this before, but I think it's worth raising again since it seems to be a common opinion that if the stadium moves off the lakefront the odds that the land bridge and lakefront development are derailed increase significantly. 

 

I know we've seen a lot of these lakefront plans proposed and fail, but this is a pretty central policy of the Bibb administration so he has a fair amount of political capital riding on seeing this through. The current lakefront plan also is supported by more than just the HSG and includes a broader base of support from non-profit and business leaders than past plans, so I don't think that just because Jimbo might lose interest it means that all of a sudden that broad base of support evaporates along with it.

 

Lastly, if the stadium is removed thats 31 acres of previously undevelopable land now available. Now, someone correct me here if I'm wrong, but building on the old stadium site could reuse the stadium caissons to reduce construction cost and build bigger here. Further increasing any developers ROI. 

 

To bring this around and more on topic of the Cleveland Browns Stadium and not just the lakefront, one last thought. The Broadway Ave site was always my preference. I recognize this location is disconnected from Jacobs and the Gund, but far less disconnected than a Brookpark stadium would be to anything but the airport. Others have pointed out the mistake of building another lifestyle center in Brookpark centered around a football stadium so I won't retread that. I would like to add; even tho the USPS site offers less developable land wouldn't this be a better development opportunity with Blitzer, Gilbert, and Haslam all working to build a ballpark village in the same general area? Haslam could build off what the other 2 are building to attract residential and business tenants instead of going it alone in Brookpark. 

It seems like the most workable solution is for a profit-sharing structure so that Cleveland/county makes back the principal/interest in x number of years, since the NFL bastards won't permit the city/county to have equity in the team. That way Jimmy gets his half bill, and the city/county doesn't get ripped off with yet another f'ing albatross. 

 

If Jimmy uses that "oh, it's worth it for the morale, hotels, restaurants, strip clubs, and parking lot owners' revenue" nonsense, then leadership should go to the public and get feedback. Residents of West Park and Central, where do you want your tax money to go? They deserve a say, especially since most won't even be able to attend those 10 annual games.

 

Frankly, I don't know how essential this project is, Browns and adjacent lakefront alike. At the end of the day, unless Burke is included which it won't, we're talking about a relatively small area that would require many billions of investments for anything "transformative". That kind of financing is off the table regardless of where the Browns play.

 

Frankly, the Flats is where the focus and investments should be - but I digress.

I assume The Haslams have 2 different stadium designs that they are floating around. It would be nice to see these concepts so the public could weigh in on which they prefer. Renovation to existing site or new site somewhere else.

From Brent Larkin's column in this morning's Plain Dealer:

 

"For months, one of the town's worst-kept secrets has been that Browns owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam have an alternative stadium site in Brook Park.  One of the suburb's council members told me about it in December.  But building a new stadium there would be even more foolish than guaranteeing $230 million for a quarterback accused of being a sexual predator by no fewer than 30 women.  And asking Cuyahoga County residents to pay more than a small fraction of the cost would be a nonstarter. . .  The money that the Browns wasted on Deshaun Watson would pay for nearly 25% of the stadium renovation."

28 minutes ago, Quilliam said:

From Brent Larkin's column in this morning's Plain Dealer:

 

"For months, one of the town's worst-kept secrets has been that Browns owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam have an alternative stadium site in Brook Park.  One of the suburb's council members told me about it in December.  But building a new stadium there would be even more foolish than guaranteeing $230 million for a quarterback accused of being a sexual predator by no fewer than 30 women.  And asking Cuyahoga County residents to pay more than a small fraction of the cost would be a nonstarter. . .  The money that the Browns wasted on Deshaun Watson would pay for nearly 25% of the stadium renovation."

LOL. The mayor of Brookpark, in recent news articles, has denied knowing absolutely anything

that means the PD was sitting on the story. were they waiting for the Browns' OK before publishing? are they just stenographers for the Haslams?

 

makes quinns editorial even worse. 

Ok,  upfront this is a Browns "future" stadium in Brook Park joke.   It's not especially well thought out, so it could bomb (which shouldn't come as a surprise to Brown's fans).  And, I am censoring the other parties name because I am super thrilled to the commitment they are making in locating a major new facility in Brook Park and don't want any inadvertent Google searches tying their name to the Browns.  

 

Purple Chasm finalizes their land purchase to construct an 'extreme environment' test facility where humans will be subjected and need to endure some of the highest levels of stress and discomfort that humans are reasonably thought to be able to survive.     Right here in ol' suburban Brook Park.

 

 Jimmy Haslam:  "Hold my Beer!" 

 

  

Let's say that the Browns decide to build a domed stadium, but not at the current site but within the city of Cleveland.  Best options? 

I'm guessing that they'll want some developable land around it, and they'll need lots of room for parking and tailgating, plus good transit access and not too far from the existing downtown core and its restaurants and hotels.  What are the options?

Something that I heard is being done elsewhere is using the income tax revenue for all of the employees at a new stadium and using it to help pay for the new stadium.  It's another interesting idea. 

 

Browns, if you create lots of jobs and continue to overpay your players, you can have a nicer stadium.  LOL