21 minutes ago, TMart said:

What a contrast it is to see the Cavs, Cleveland Clinic, and Bedrock announcement to build a state-of-the-art facility in downtown Cleveland the day after the Haslams announcing the may build a dome in Brookpark. Unfortunately, it appears the best option, building a state-of-the-art covered stadium downtown, away from the lake, isn't even on the table. I'm sorry to those who think a football stadium downtown is a waste of space, but I believe it would be a huge loss for downtown to lose the Browns. 

A Browns game is more than just a "game". It is an experience that is heightened by all of the amentites that exist downtown.

 

Please don't move to Brook Park!!!

1 hour ago, Cleburger said:

Crocker Park isn't wedged between 2 highways, a rail yard and a busy Class B airport.  

 

All I'm saying is its not far fetched. Here's TPA International, much larger and busier airport than we have and they have a shopping center and stadium almost right under the flight path. As others have said it's not some pie in the sky idea: these highways carry a lot of ppl with money back to their suburbs and Medina Co.

 

Do I want it? No! But also the Haslam's have plenty to go on with other ownership groups building "villages" to capture all revenue from the franchises (as KJP's pointed out). 

 

While I would have loved to see the stadium be built on the Davenport Bluff on the northeast side of downtown, it sure sounds to me like this thing is going to Brook Park. My article yesterday sorts out the reasons why. And this is not on the Haslams -- if what they say is true that they are not considering a dome anywhere in Cleveland. That sounds like it's on the city because a roof means more costs to share with a private partner. A dome means more events, more spin-off development and more parking devoted to the stadium. And the Haslams want to control the revenue from all of it. That's not happening on the lakefront north of the tracks where no one can own land except the state or a state-chartered agency. The state even contends the city cannot own reclaimed land, let alone sell anything above it (air rights, condos, etc). Look at the city's lakefront plans versus what the Browns put out a couple years ago. One is revenue-rich. The other is public-space-rich. Where is all of the thousands of parking spaces? They're all gone except for what looks like a 1,000-space garage/multimodal station.

 

I hear folks wonder how can Brook Park afford this if Cleveland can't. Browns can own the land in Brook Park. That's 176 acres vs leasing 50 on the lakefront or buying 50 at the post office site. Browns can own the stadium, the parking, the ballpark village, etc. Brook Park can tax-exempt it. They and the county can TIF the taxes they can't exempt. They can get a big chunk of dough from the state that will cover the non-Cuyahoga County users of the stadium.

 

And the Haslams have wanted a deal similar to what they got for the Crew Stadium in Columbus. How much money did the city of Columbus put into the new Crew Stadium? ZERO. The Haslams were allowed to own everything and keep the money from everything. 

 

One last thing. The Haslams have an opportunity to do something no one else in the NFL can offer -- a football stadium and its ballpark village attached to an international airport. The NFL is the billionaires' boys club. These guys are show-offs and braggadocios. The Haslams want to be able to say they've got something no one else in the NFL has, to give tours of it, and talk about it with pride like I talk about my son.

That all makes sense. I just wish they'd announce something concrete so we can move on.

30 minutes ago, GISguy said:

 

All I'm saying is its not far fetched. Here's TPA International, much larger and busier airport than we have and they have a shopping center and stadium almost right under the flight path. As others have said it's not some pie in the sky idea: these highways carry a lot of ppl with money back to their suburbs and Medina Co.

 

Do I want it? No! But also the Haslam's have plenty to go on with other ownership groups building "villages" to capture all revenue from the franchises (as KJP's pointed out). 

 

 

^ thats interesting to see and i think reflects the old cle hopkins setting best.

 

the east coast airports like philly, logan, reagan, lga/jfk are actually more set away from housing. the slight exception is newark, which has a little bit of residential elizabeth abutting it — and a mall and a popular ikea across I-95 from it.

 

of course practicallythat speaking that hardly matters when the flight approach path is over your head in your area (and hellooo st maarten 😂 ).

 

so not sure, but i would think anything aside of the airport runway approaches would be fine for the stadium. and that low rung guess is based mostly on hanging out at the bomber club lol.

It does make sense on the surface from the Haslem's point of view.   But it will be a huge nail in the coffin for downtown.   And I agree it will be far-fetched to think that the stadium village on that site will be some sort of destination.   It may be a novelty for a while, but then it will just be in the race to the bottom for the dollars of a dwindling population.   

2 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

It does make sense on the surface from the Haslem's point of view.   But it will be a huge nail in the coffin for downtown.   And I agree it will be far-fetched to think that the stadium village on that site will be some sort of destination.   It may be a novelty for a while, but then it will just be in the race to the bottom for the dollars of a dwindling population.   

 

i agree — with the stadium remaining.

 

however, with the mistake on the lake removed it opens up a whole world of prime waterfront real estate redevelopment. count me as highly optimistic about that. 👍

Not that the haslems need anyone to speaking up for them but their lower.com stadium is fantastic also the way it integrates into the existing arena district is great and the build out of Astor Park partially led by the haslems around the stadium looks great so I wouldn’t say they don’t have the development chops or know how, they’ve proven they do just in Columbus  

 

*edit sorry didn’t notice how many posts came between this and the post I was referring to this is in response to @TBideon

Edited March 27, 20241 yr by BoomerangCleRes

13 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

 It may be a novelty for a while, but then it will just be in the race to the bottom for the dollars of a dwindling population.   

 

This is a friendly reminder to everyone that the CLE MSA does not have a dwindling population. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

Anyways, back to the stadium...

Edited March 27, 20241 yr by Geowizical

Wonderful! World class stadium for world class Brookpark. 

 

A dome in Brookpark surrounded by all that parking is certainly great for the Haslems. And great for the fans attending. It's just not great for the economy and energy of downtown. 

 

Everyone pick a side. I'm on team downtown. And being a tried and true Clevlander l'm used to being on the losing side as l'm sure to be on this one too.

imagine a dome next to the airport … next to the I-X. 🙀

If it goes to Brookpark, it better be funded solely by Haslam with NO tax dollars.

2 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

If it goes to Brookpark, it better be funded solely by Haslam with NO tax dollars.

 

 

The more I think about it, the more I am on Team Brookpark.  If NFL stadiums were great drivers of economic activity, there would be a lot more examples of them doing just that across the country, and I just don't see it.  And no, a "stadium village" with a few sports bars doesn't count.  

 

If downtown is relying on 10 (at most) well-attended Browns Stadium events per year to survive, then it's not worth trying to save that version of downtown IMO.  

 

Moving the stadium off the lake will provide an opportunity to do SOMETHING there that might build a healthier, more sustainable downtown long-term.  It will also hurt the parking lot owners the most, and I think we can all get behind that.  

6 minutes ago, cadmen said:

Wonderful! World class stadium for world class Brookpark. 

 

A dome in Brookpark surrounded by all that parking is certainly great for the Haslems. And great for the fans attending. It's just not great for the economy and energy of downtown. 

 

Everyone pick a side. I'm on team downtown. And being a tried and true Clevlander l'm used to being on the losing side as l'm sure to be on this one too.

As someone who grew up in Middleburg Heights, went to Ford Middle School in Brookpark and had many friends live in that area, Brookpark is one of the least appealing suburbs from a looks point of view.  It is run down.  I get the airport and the transportation, but other than that, it does not have much going for it.  I don't see a dome changing it as much as people think it will.  Also, I really wanted businesses and warehouses to go on that land in Brookpark.  Not a bunch of parking lots.

The Haslam'a haven't made anything happen on the Lakefront, but we're supposed to believe that they are going to make a destination development happen between an airport, a highway, and rail tracks?  Best of luck to them.

 

This is a great move for the Brookpark Rd.strip clubs, at least.

Just now, cle_guy90 said:

As someone who grew up in Middleburg Heights, went to Ford Middle School in Brookpark and had many friends live in that area, Brookpark is one of the least appealing suburbs from a looks point of view.  It is run down.  I get the airport and the transportation, but other than that, it does not have much going for it.  I don't see a dome changing it as much as people think it will.  Also, I really wanted businesses and warehouses to go on that land in Brookpark.  Not a bunch of parking lots.

I would rather see the Brookpark property used for expanding Hopkins landside operations.

2 minutes ago, X said:

This is a great move for the Brookpark Rd.strip clubs, at least.

 

Someone on Browns reddit the other day referred to it as the Brookpark Ballet lol 

 

And unrelated to your post but semantics/since I've had to look one too many times for work, the city of Brook Park is two words, Brookpark Rd. makes me question it way too much.

Edited March 27, 20241 yr by GISguy

I’m torn, but I think I kind of see this as a lateral move either way. I mean, the true “renaissance” of Cleveland started happening in the mid-90’s, almost immediately after the Browns moved to a different city. While having all 3 teams within downtown is a suer cool, and fairly unique situation, the stadium is a depressing empty pit on prime land for most of the year. With the new TIF financing in place, and the population continuing to grow, while this will be a tough loss (it appears the Haslem’s have already made up their minds but are trying on various coats of armor to shield themselves from the amount of hate they are about to receive) Cleveland is in a much healthier place than it has been since the 60’s so it should be fine. And I am also optimistic like @mrnycwhen it comes to a potential lakefront neighborhood. Plus with the investment from the Cavs and Guardians, I feel like the city will be just fine. Let Brook Park deal with drunks playing cornhole and using the parking lot as a giant outdoor toilet, and let Cleveland finally build on the lakefront and Muni Lot. 

6 minutes ago, Boaty McBoatface said:

I’m torn, but I think I kind of see this as a lateral move either way. I mean, the true “renaissance” of Cleveland started happening in the mid-90’s, almost immediately after the Browns moved to a different city. While having all 3 teams within downtown is a suer cool, and fairly unique situation, the stadium is a depressing empty pit on prime land for most of the year. With the new TIF financing in place, and the population continuing to grow, while this will be a tough loss (it appears the Haslem’s have already made up their minds but are trying on various coats of armor to shield themselves from the amount of hate they are about to receive) Cleveland is in a much healthier place than it has been since the 60’s so it should be fine. And I am also optimistic like @mrnycwhen it comes to a potential lakefront neighborhood. Plus with the investment from the Cavs and Guardians, I feel like the city will be just fine. Let Brook Park deal with drunks playing cornhole and using the parking lot as a giant outdoor toilet, and let Cleveland finally build on the lakefront and Muni Lot. 

The reason a dome can't be built atop the existing stadium because the landfill below can't support the weight, right? Won't that also limit any new development if the stadium is torn down?

Just now, TMart said:

The reason a dome can't be built atop the existing stadium because the landfill below can't support the weight, right? Won't that also limit any new development if the stadium is torn down?

 

now that is the devil in the details. my understanding is the stadium/port landfill area is more built up than burke, but that would have to be closely examined. it may take more time to redevelop than we all would like if it needs remediated and more fill added. i would think its probably likely it will need some additional infill, but maybe just in places, depending on what developers would have in mind. 

With Browns Stadium gone there is no doubt that the land it sits on will be a much more vibrant area. With that being said, the Browns hosting stadium shows Downtown has a much different feel that hosting stadium shows in a far away piece of land like Brookpark I'm not sure how attractive it will be to people to be honest. 

 

Another thing is there is no way that Brookpark can foot the bill like Cleveland can so that means Haslam will have to find the difference somewhere, be it his own pockets or the state. If he does go that route, him not being willing to do that in Cleveland to me shows that he is set on going to Brookpark and is disguising funding as a reason on why he wants to leave. 

 

One thing no one is talking about though is Berea is only 11 minutes away from Brookpark. Combine that with him buying land up in both areas and it all makes sense on why he is doing what he is doing. 

21 minutes ago, Boaty McBoatface said:

I mean, the true “renaissance” of Cleveland started happening in the mid-90’s, almost immediately after the Browns moved to a different city.

I think it started a bit sooner - late 80s/early 90s, berfore the Browns moved.

Would the possibility of Burke closing have an effect on these decisions? Do they know something that we don't?

Well, we won't have to worry about Burke closing in our lifetimes.

 

As for the pessimism of the Browns leaving, downtown will survive if they play elsewhere for 9 or 10 Sundays a year. The city seemed to do okay in the 90s when they were gone; actually, it was an amazing three years as I remember.

20 minutes ago, MyPhoneDead said:

With Browns Stadium gone there is no doubt that the land it sits on will be a much more vibrant area. With that being said, the Browns hosting stadium shows Downtown has a much different feel that hosting stadium shows in a far away piece of land like Brookpark I'm not sure how attractive it will be to people to be honest. 

 

Another thing is there is no way that Brookpark can foot the bill like Cleveland can so that means Haslam will have to find the difference somewhere, be it his own pockets or the state. If he does go that route, him not being willing to do that in Cleveland to me shows that he is set on going to Brookpark and is disguising funding as a reason on why he wants to leave. 

 

One thing no one is talking about though is Berea is only 11 minutes away from Brookpark. Combine that with him buying land up in both areas and it all makes sense on why he is doing what he is doing. 

Another concern, is you take away 10-12 insanely profitable days for those downtown businesses with the Browns games, concerts, and the like.  There will be some businesses who probably will have to close as a result of the Browns moving.

1 minute ago, TBideon said:

Well, we won't have to worry about Burke closing in our lifetimes.

 

As for the pessimism of the Browns leaving, downtown will survive if they play elsewhere for 9 or 10 Sundays a year. The city seemed to do okay in the 90s when they were gone; actually, it was an amazing three years as I remember.

But you have to remember that was coupled with the Indians having 5 straight years of sell outs downtown.  That is not happening anytime soon.

17 hours ago, Foraker said:

Not so silly -- that would be a nice addition to the current car-centered design of the area.  (I'd rather see a better Red Line experience, however, than more parking)

 

yeah i would imagine another rapid stop just outside the airport would be built for sure.

 

my bad about an airport airtrain to the car rental facility. i think it was briefly considered intially when it was built back in 1998, but they went with a bus instead.

 

its moot now anyway as i see they want to move the car rental facility back to the airport (by 2027). frankly thats better as long as they have room for it:

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2023/02/new-rental-car-fee-will-fund-relocation-of-rental-center-back-to-cleveland-hopkins-airport-main-campus.html

7 minutes ago, cle_guy90 said:

But you have to remember that was coupled with the Indians having 5 straight years of sell outs downtown.  That is not happening anytime soon.

Hey, they haven't lost yet this season!

13 minutes ago, TBideon said:

As for the pessimism of the Browns leaving, downtown will survive if they play elsewhere for 9 or 10 Sundays a year. The city seemed to do okay in the 90s when they were gone; actually, it was an amazing three years as I remember.

And seeing that space open after the old stadium was torn down and before the new stadium started going up was amazing.

 

11 minutes ago, cle_guy90 said:

Another concern, is you take away 10-12 insanely profitable days for those downtown businesses with the Browns games, concerts, and the like.  There will be some businesses who probably will have to close as a result of the Browns moving.

But those 10-12 days could be offset by year-round events/activities in that space.

 

Edited March 27, 20241 yr by LibertyBlvd

A billion dollars so ~5-10 bars can rake in cash for 4 hours on 10 days/year is not a good trade.   

Edited March 27, 20241 yr by ML11

Also, and when I have a minute, I'll have to spend some time looking it up, is the Browns stadium even an actual, provable economic engine in which the public sees a net positive ROI? 

I think there's some sort of misty eyed view that the Browns leaving the Lakefront is going to instantly turn that land into Vancouver. Much of its border sits alongside dockyards, surface lots, a highway and an airport. Apartments in its place next to the museums still sit plonked on an island more or less. 

Cleveland's airport director concerned about Browns' plan for dome near Hopkins

JOE SCALZO 

March 27, 2024

 

Quote

“When I think about the congestion that could be coming if a facility of that size were to be located literally across the street from our terminal campus (it concerns me),” he said. “It is something that we'll certainly be watching closely. The road access is already inferior.”

 

 

...

 

 

“What happens on Sundays when there are tens of thousands of cars that have no interest in the airport across the road, but there are many thousands of cars that (have) people who need to get to and from the airport for travel purposes?” Francis said. “It's something that we'll certainly continue to watch.”

 

 

...

 

“There is a lot of effort being spent on really using the airport as the hub to make some of the developable land or available facilities to raise the visibility for interest in parties who may be outside of this region,” Francis said. “Because of all of that, the more that the area is built up, the more it can support the further growth of the airport. And it's a symbiotic relationship. It's win-win. And we want to continue to do our part and to be as good of a partner as we can be for those types of entities because we understand that their success is our success.

 

https://www.crainscleveland.com/sports-recreation/cleveland-airport-director-concerned-about-browns-dome-site#/

If that whole area became just a park, that would be a hell of a fun day for Clevelanders 6-8 months a year.  Edgewater Park 2.0. 

 

A low cost Boston Commons or Millenium Park, which would draw in people from the region, would warrant investment more than an unused albatross gifted to a criminal billionaire and her husband. 

 

Edited March 27, 20241 yr by TBideon

6 minutes ago, snakebite said:

I think there's some sort of misty eyed view that the Browns leaving the Lakefront is going to instantly turn that land into Vancouver. Much of its border sits alongside dockyards, surface lots, a highway and an airport. Apartments in its place next to the museums still sit plonked on an island more or less. 

 

i dont think anybody envisions anonymous people box condo towers of vancouver. even if they did the faa would not let it be built that way with the airport.

 

personally i was thinking of something more lower rise along the lines of like a washington dc harbor development or a more modern marina del rey city clubish type area look with boating and water access and maybe some offices, retail and attractions. maybe not so dense, something like that.

22 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

Cleveland's airport director concerned about Browns' plan for dome near Hopkins

JOE SCALZO 

March 27, 2024

 

 

https://www.crainscleveland.com/sports-recreation/cleveland-airport-director-concerned-about-browns-dome-site#/

 

So now (as expected), the City of Cleveland is posturing further against a new stadium in Brookpark.

Then the airport director can direct people to the red line. Or, like cities with 10x the amount of traffic near airports, somehow life still goes on and people adapt.

 

I think the guy just wants his name in the paper. At least he didn't use the word "transformative".

14 minutes ago, TBideon said:

Then the airport director can direct people to the red line. Or, like cities with 10x the amount of traffic near airports, somehow life still goes on and people adapt.

 

I think the guy just wants his name in the paper. At least he didn't use the word "transformative".

 

You're acting like this isn't coordinated from the city, I doubt this hasn't been discussed internally between high level staffers.

If the Browns do move to Brook Park, would there be room downtown near the other sports venues for a soccer stadium?   Would a soccer stadium activate the city more than an NFL stadium?

 

I doubt it but it would be something. What's Hector Marinaro doing these days anyway. 

7 minutes ago, OH_Really said:

If the Browns do move to Brook Park, would there be room downtown near the other sports venues for a soccer stadium?   Would a soccer stadium activate the city more than an NFL stadium?

 

 

Maybe, MLS has 17 home games regular season home games vs 9 in the NFL. The question is how many people would go to the games and are there other uses for the stadium. The fieldhouse for example has the Cavs who have 42 home games and the Monsters who have 36 home games per season. Add on to that some number of concerts, and there are around 100 days a year that it's hosting events. So that's activating the city and bringing in a lot of People per Year per Acre of downtown land (which is a metric I just made up). The issue with NFL stadiums is that they are too big to be practical for concerts, as only the biggest acts can actually fill them up. Resulting in a relatively low PYA comparatively.

 

In the process of writing this, I had the idea that the Hall of Fame and a soccer team could work together to build a stadium where one end of the field has a stage instead of seating. Not sure if that would actually work or who pay for it to be built, but an interesting idea.

Baltimore's downtown hotel occupancy has doubled from 20-40% on winter weekends an NFL game has taken place. Doubt the other three major leagues could touch that let alone minor leagues. 

2 hours ago, mrnyc said:

 

yeah i would imagine another rapid stop just outside the airport would be built for sure.

 

my bad about an airport airtrain to the car rental facility. i think it was briefly considered intially when it was built back in 1998, but they went with a bus instead.

 

its moot now anyway as i see they want to move the car rental facility back to the airport (by 2027). frankly thats better as long as they have room for it:

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2023/02/new-rental-car-fee-will-fund-relocation-of-rental-center-back-to-cleveland-hopkins-airport-main-campus.html

No, let's put all the parking at a Red line station and reserve the space at the airport for other things  (extend the Red Line to the I-X center and put the parking there!).

2 hours ago, cle_guy90 said:

Another concern, is you take away 10-12 insanely profitable days for those downtown businesses with the Browns games, concerts, and the like.  There will be some businesses who probably will have to close as a result of the Browns moving.

You create a vibrant downtown lakefront that is very active consistently similar to Navy Pier (which the Master Plan reminds me of in some ways) then you have businesses that benefit 7 days a week instead of 10 days out of 365. Will there be some adjustment needed? Yes but a successful urban core to me is one that thrives no matter the time of year. 

1 hour ago, Henryefry said:

In the process of writing this, I had the idea that the Hall of Fame and a soccer team could work together to build a stadium where one end of the field has a stage instead of seating. Not sure if that would actually work or who pay for it to be built, but an interesting idea.

 

You just described the old Crew stadium which has a stage on one end.

 

New York, Washington, D.C., Boston, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Miami, Dallas. All cities that claim storied NFL franchises and yet do not possess a NFL stadium. I just see no evidence that moving the stadium to just *barely* outside city limits will harm Cleveland or downtown.

 

We can debate the merits of the location, but I find some of the takes above to be baselessly pessimistic.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If the Browns had been right next to the airport for the last 25 years and we were talking about moving them to the lakefront for the first time, I don't think the general attitude would be unwavering enthusiasm about the move.

 

The Brookpark location is a very sensible location. Right next to all kinds of transportation, and in an area that's doing virtually nada right now. Will it compete with downtown for some residents, activity, etc? I'm sure it will! But it's an urban location and it's in the county. Every healthy city (I'm using city in a general sense, not strictly referring to the borders of the city) has a bunch of different nodes of activity. In the best cities, the nodes are well connected with transit, and the nodes all compete with each other and complement each other in various ways. A Browns stadium with an entertainment district right by the airport (and redline) would be a healthy addition to the region and will not greatly harm downtown. 

a real analysis would need to be done. percent increase in downtown restaurants on browns Sundays vs other Sundays. same with muni lot/parking deck revenue, hotels. taxes the city takes in from player salary, vendor salary, food and merchandise in the stadium. compare that to the cost of the city maintaining the stadium. I think the spending power of 100,000 drunk people buying 100 dollar tickets is pretty significant.

 

I think it's probabaly better for the city of cleveland to try to keep the browns in the city.

 

it's not that the browns leaving downtown would ruin the city, but we can't keep saying it isn't a big deal whenever a large organization leaves town. it remindeds me of medical mutual leaving and people saying the building was better off being residential, anyways.

 

 

2 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

New York, Washington, D.C., Boston, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Miami, Dallas. All cities that claim storied NFL franchises and yet do not possess a NFL stadium. I just see no evidence that moving the stadium to just *barely* outside city limits will harm Cleveland or downtown.

All very much apples-oranges in terms of economies.   Your list is basically 8 of the top 10 metros in the country.  

Cleveland is down at #36, per the Wikipedia list consulted.  

 

A Brook Park stadium will definitely harm downtown and businesses, not only in terms of actual spending in restaurants, bars and hotels, but in the dollars attracted for other lakefront investment.   There is no way a new shipping museum or Ferris wheel is going to steer federal, state and local money to the lakefront in the way that the active participation of an NFL team would. 

 

In addition, the city would be losing the revenue from the ticket sales as well as the income tax levied on the players salaries.   

 

And I don't care what the suburbanites on Facebook or Cleveland.com say, traffic will be 100 times worse getting to this site than a downtown site.   You basically have 2 highways and a rail line, instead of multiple highways and rail lines.   If they think it's bad now, wait until 70,000 people try to exit the same giant parking lot after drinking there all day.   

40 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

New York, Washington, D.C., Boston, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Miami, Dallas. All cities that claim storied NFL franchises and yet do not possess a NFL stadium. I just see no evidence that moving the stadium to just *barely* outside city limits will harm Cleveland or downtown.

 

 

excluding Dallas all of the cities mentioned have extremely mature urban cores without a decline. They also house many more millionaires and billionaires let alone millions and millions of more visitors and residents. Also the price to build a stadium in the urban core for these cities would be absurd if not impossible. 
 

I do not think we share anything similar to these cities at the current moment in the context of having a stadium downtown 

Edited March 27, 20241 yr by BoomerangCleRes