30 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

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.   

 

Definitely agree with a lot of these points, but the opposing case is that the NFL team has been there for a long time, and federal, state, and local money hasn't exactly been funneling in to improve the lakefront.  The city would have more money to spend on the lakefront if it's not spending $500 million to support the Haslams improving the stadium.  This is the classic case that's laid out by all the research that says public funding for stadiums doesn't improve the local economy.  The city wouldn't have to pay to support the Browns, and should in turn be able to invest in other things.  Plus they'd just have more space to work with once the stadium is gone.

 

I believe most, if not all, of player salary taxes go to Berea and wherever they're playing road games.

4 minutes ago, acd said:

 

Definitely agree with a lot of these points, but the opposing case is that the NFL team has been there for a long time, and federal, state, and local money hasn't exactly been funneling in to improve the lakefront.  The city would have more money to spend on the lakefront if it's not spending $500 million to support the Haslams improving the stadium.  This is the classic case that's laid out by all the research that says public funding for stadiums doesn't improve the local economy.  The city wouldn't have to pay to support the Browns, and should in turn be able to invest in other things.  Plus they'd just have more space to work with once the stadium is gone.

 

I believe most, if not all, of player salary taxes go to Berea and wherever they're playing road games.

but yet Bibb continues to say he expects a renovated stadium in his plan for the lakefront 
 

The salary taxes go to the city in which they play. 

Edited March 27, 20241 yr by BoomerangCleRes

6 hours ago, GISguy said:

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). 

 

They've already started to do that with their "tailgates" ( a misnomer, if you are not in a parking lot adjacent to vehicles it is not a tailgate it is a picnic) full of stadium-level alcohol prices and adverti.....errr......"sponsor" booths.

11 minutes ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

but yet Bibb continues to say he expects a renovated stadium in his plan for the lakefront 
 

The salary taxes go to the city in which they play. 

 

https://www.cleveland.com/community/2020/05/berea-mayor-discusses-impact-of-pandemic-on-browns-income-tax-revenue.html

 

I guess it's closer to 50/50 than I thought, though player bonuses can get pretty large, which would tip the scales a bit more toward Berea.

  With the demolition of the stadium, they could just replace it with a giant parking lot.  Hear me out, the parking lot could be a giant mutiplex drive-in theater...suburban surface lot fan boi's would be happy AND there would be outdoor family fun!

  Okay, anyway, back on topic.  I am not a fan of the Browns leaving the city proper, but at least it isn't going to Richfield.  It WILL hurt downtown businesses with what would have been game days, but I do think that can be leveled out throughout the year with more residential and business ventures on the site.  A Gold Coast type area with outdoor activities for summer, but include some form of bar/restaurant/shopping as well would work nicely.  Water access with all this would be key.

  As far as traffic during game day in Brookpark...yikes.  I wonder if being so close to the highways would actually back up traffic ON the highways?    I know it would be pie in the sky, but expansion and addition to the red line would be key.  Maybe an extension to Bagley/I-71 with a park-n-ride parking deck?   It's too bad they couldn't redo the disaster they made at 71 and 480 and make it a cloverleaf while the are at it.  Just some off the cuff and not planned out ideas on my part, feel free to add or correct.

1 hour ago, Cleburger said:

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.   

That assumes people wouldn't spend their money elsewhere downtown; maybe there could be a Browns watch party in the stadium or other inventive ways of attracting people downtown those 9 Sundays and 1 Monday/Thursday a year. Also, what businesses would really suffer? Ancillary gameday benefits are probably limited to downtown hotels, eateries, parking lot owners (the real heroes), liquor stores and strip clubs. It's not like the family is shopping at Higbee's before the game.

 

All that aside, yes, the city/county receive some tax revenue, of course they do, but I don't think any of us really know if that amount surpasses the hundreds of millions, if not billions, in public costs for the stadium, repairs, utilities, etc. 

 

And that aside, Cleveland, no longer saddled with the Browns stadium, would have a lot of cash for other investments that could have a big impact.

 

Been a crazy busy day, but I really want to dig into the numbers when I get a chance.

According to Nick Castele's analysis from last year, the income taxes generated from the stadium being in Cleveland are somewhere south of $2 million a year and the taxes on ticket sales are somewhere north of $4 million a year. His analysis concludes that the stadium loses the city money overall (to be clear, that's not including a renovation; just the stadium as it is). https://signalcleveland.org/the-public-cost-of-cleveland-browns-stadium-hundreds-of-millions-and-counting/

 

I don't know if those numbers are correct, but they're not obviously wrong.

 

So if $2 million is what's lost in income tax revenue, and $4 million is what's lost in taxes on ticket sales, you have a total of $6 million in lost taxes if the Browns leave Cleveland. Then let's assume Nick Castele's estimate is wrong by a factor of two and throw in an extra couple million just because. This seems really high, but maybe it's plausible. Now we're up to $14 million a year in revenue lost to the city. Ouch. But if we're missing that $14 million because the city refused to pony up $1 billion, is that a bad deal? Paying $1 billion for $14 million a year in revenue would be like buying a bond that pays out 1.4% interest. And that's assuming the city breaks even on leasing the stadium to the Browns (which the city historically has not). Looks like a terrible deal to me. And this is using back of napkin math that probably grossly overestimates the tax benefits of the stadium and grossly underestimates the cost of building a new stadium.

 

Now, I want to be clear that I agree the stadium moving is a loss for downtown. But the stadium moving is probably a net neutral thing for the region (there are pros and cons to both sites, and Brookpark is still a part of the urban core, unlike Richfield) and probably a financial plus for the City of Cleveland. So I'm just overall ambivalent about the move, and I strongly disagree with anyone who would preach doom and gloom or say this is some kind of HUGE loss. Downtown is very vibrant on many days that don't include a Browns game. And the coming development from core-to-shore-to-core, if it's anywhere close to what it's cracked up to be, will more than make up for the loss of the stadium.

1 hour ago, acd said:

 

Definitely agree with a lot of these points, but the opposing case is that the NFL team has been there for a long time, and federal, state, and local money hasn't exactly been funneling in to improve the lakefront. 

 

There has been mention in Ken's an other articles that Haslem has had interest in a public/private situation for developing the land immediately surrounding the stadium.   Let's face it--if there isn't a billionaire involved and it's just a bunch of citizens trying to recreate our own version of Navy Pier, the pocketbooks will close.  

 

1 hour ago, acd said:

I believe most, if not all, of player salary taxes go to Berea and wherever they're playing road games.

Not true--the City of Cleveland levies a 2% non-resident entertainer and athlete tax.  

6 hours ago, mrnyc said:

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

I was imagining that very thing...  a dome stadium with retail and a hotel, a redeveloped airport, the IX center, and blue abyss/NASA with a new hotel...  a people mover connecting the four areas... sounds like a possible amazing development... although, I've always favored stadiums/arenas in urban settings...

If the stadium leaves downtown, that would be a little sad, but I'm not sure it will be a death blow to downtown.  It could be a GREAT opportunity. 

 

Hear me out...Our downtown convention center is landlocked and I believe I read that it needs to be bigger to attract some of the more impressive events.  It also poses some obstacles to the land bridge concept.  Meanwhile, the IX Center draws 750k visitors (according to its website) which is probably about what the Browns Stadium currently generates in terms of annual visitors.  The IX center is also over 80 years old and was originally built as a factory-so not the greatest facility in the world.  Furthermore, our current airport terminal is about 60 years old and kind of sucks.  But we really don't have anywhere to build a new one.

 

Soooo.....

 

The Haslam's could build a new Browns Stadium in Brook Park and Cleveland wouldn't have to put any money towards it.  Once the stadium is off the lakefront, a new convention center addition could be built in its place connected by a land bridge.  Chicago's McCormick Place has almost this identical situation (Cleveland's wouldn't be quite as big though).  The new convention center could still be supported by new lakefront hotels, restaurants, and other development.  In fact, a convention center project be more of a jumpstart to new development than a stadium.  Once the convention center is done, they could knock down the IX Center and build a new airport terminal. 

 

The City would win by keeping almost 1M people coming downtown annually.  Plus $500M of City money that would otherwise go to a stadium could be put to use to help fund a larger convention center, land bridge, new lakefront development, and new airport terminal.  $500M would be enough for all of that of course, but it makes a really great start!

 

The Haslam's would win because they'd get the new domed stadium they always wanted and the real estate control for land surrounding the stadium.

1 hour ago, acd said:

 

https://www.cleveland.com/community/2020/05/berea-mayor-discusses-impact-of-pandemic-on-browns-income-tax-revenue.html

 

I guess it's closer to 50/50 than I thought, though player bonuses can get pretty large, which would tip the scales a bit more toward Berea.

I was referring more to the jock tax which I guess seems to be limited to just the state level I guess I’m not sure if they pay in every city they play in id assume so since that’s how it would work for another person but may not 

I don't think opponents of the move are saying it would devastate downtown. I know l'm not. I am saying the Browns are part of the fabric of the downtown economy. When the do play there is a major uptick in spending and street energy. If we were a large, wealthy market that wouldn't matter. But we're not so every day of the year when SOMETHlNG of magnitude is going on it definitely helps the bottom line.

 

Leaving downtown does open up the lakefront for development sure, but it still doesn't guarantee it. You need cash (lot's of it) and leadership willing to lead (and fund) it. Will Haslem still do that? Of course not. He'll be building up Brook Park. 

 

Look l am biased. My preference for development is inside out. Like waves from a rock. But that's not how America works. We like our space. And we like new. So that's what we'll get. A new bauble to enjoy. Cheers Cleveland.

 

 

Historical question wasn’t there a parking revenue piece that was also a reason why progressive didn’t build their tower amongst other reasons 

2 hours ago, acd said:

 

Definitely agree with a lot of these points, but the opposing case is that the NFL team has been there for a long time, and federal, state, and local money hasn't exactly been funneling in to improve the lakefront.  The city would have more money to spend on the lakefront if it's not spending $500 million to support the Haslams improving the stadium.  This is the classic case that's laid out by all the research that says public funding for stadiums doesn't improve the local economy.  The city wouldn't have to pay to support the Browns, and should in turn be able to invest in other things.  Plus they'd just have more space to work with once the stadium is gone.

 

I believe most, if not all, of player salary taxes go to Berea and wherever they're playing road games.

I’m with you. If I’m Justin Bibb, I put together a detailed breakdown of how many hundreds of millions of dollars the city will save by the Browns moving to Brookpark.

 

Every visitor will still stay downtown and frequent the great downtown/OHC/UC/LI/Tremont/GS restaurants, bars, shops, museums, etc.  And we’ve already had a successful trial run of the Browns absent from DT.

 

That massive amount of saved money, teamed with the new downtown TIFF, and let’s do some big things. STAT.

 

And if it shows Jimmy was bluffing, we get a great stadium deal downtown. Take the bargaining chip away from the Haslem’s.  

 

You said it’s one or the other Jimmy.

 

Now put up.

 

That’s what I would do anyhow…..

 

 

3 minutes ago, GISguy said:

 

 

ronayne seems annoyed with this whole thing

Not Browns news, but news out of DC relating to constructing new sports facilities outside the city center.

 

 

NHL’s Capitals and NBA’s Wizards are staying in Washington after Virginia arena deal collapses

 

WASHINGTON - The NBA’s Washington Wizards and NHL’s Washington Capitals are staying in the District of Columbia.

 

Owner Ted Leonsis and Mayor Muriel Bowser announced the development at a news conference at Capital One Arena on Wednesday.

 

“District residents could not have been louder or clearer in expressing their desire for the teams to stay,” D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb said. “This outcome will have significant positive impacts on economic development, public safety, and overall District energy and spirit generated by the millions of people who attend games, shows, and concerts at Capital One Arena.

 

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2024/03/nhls-capitals-and-nbas-wizards-are-staying-in-washington-after-virginia-arena-deal-collapses.html

Edited March 28, 20241 yr by Mov2Ohio

1 hour ago, Whipjacka said:

ronayne seems annoyed with this whole thing

I hope so, we need an adult in the room.

I support Bibb but he's not ready for this, Bobby George has already taken advantage of him, Haslem might do the same.

Why would Ronayne be annoyed? This situation isn’t surprising or unexpected and part of his job to help stay ahead of it. I get annoyed by public officials who act like they too are outside observers like us. 
 

To be fair to the Haslams, they have wanted to develop around the stadium from their initial proposal. For whatever reason—legal, philosophical or both—the city’s lakefront plan focuses on public access/park vs development. Seems pretty clear now the city doesn’t want to or doesn’t think they can do all the stuff the Browns want, so the Browns went looking for another option and found Brook Park. And from the team’s perspective, it’s perfect. It doesn’t seem like the county or city has a real alternative that can match what the Browns see there. At this point it seems like their best hope is some regulatory issue saves them related to the airport but wouldn’t they have similar issues downtown next to an airport?
 

What happened in DC is interesting but I do think a bit different. Just based on comments from the Brook Park mayor and internet comments on articles from fans, people are generally cool with it and love the idea of a dome.

 

At this point the Haslams might be giving the government a heads up that they need to be ready for this move. And hopefully that means they will have a proposal for what happens to the stadium when the team moves. That’s at least my pragmatic, outsider interpretation. 

9 minutes ago, coneflower said:

Why would Ronayne be annoyed? This situation isn’t surprising or unexpected and part of his job to help stay ahead of it. I get annoyed by public officials who act like they too are outside observers like us. 
 

To be fair to the Haslams, they have wanted to develop around the stadium from their initial proposal. For whatever reason—legal, philosophical or both—the city’s lakefront plan focuses on public access/park vs development. Seems pretty clear now the city doesn’t want to or doesn’t think they can do all the stuff the Browns want, so the Browns went looking for another option and found Brook Park. And from the team’s perspective, it’s perfect. It doesn’t seem like the county or city has a real alternative that can match what the Browns see there. At this point it seems like their best hope is some regulatory issue saves them related to the airport but wouldn’t they have similar issues downtown next to an airport?
 

What happened in DC is interesting but I do think a bit different. Just based on comments from the Brook Park mayor and internet comments on articles from fans, people are generally cool with it and love the idea of a dome.

 

At this point the Haslams might be giving the government a heads up that they need to be ready for this move. And hopefully that means they will have a proposal for what happens to the stadium when the team moves. That’s at least my pragmatic, outsider interpretation. 

All of this assumes the Haslams are acting in good faith, which, lol

Well, no one will tell the public what is happening so who knows. That annoys me too. I get needing to work behind closed doors for a few months but this has been going on for years at this point. 

10 hours ago, GISguy said:

 

 

If a new stadium is going to be built, let's not put it on the lakefront.  We already made that mistake once.  And I doubt the FAA would allow any structure of that size to be built there.

 

Edited March 28, 20241 yr by LibertyBlvd

21 hours ago, KJP said:

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.

I get that if they want a dome it sounds like the Lakefront isn't happening.  But I am trying to figure out the pros of Brookpark over the post office site.  Wasn't there talk of a land swap which would mean not much spent in land acquisition by Haslams plus you would still have an additional $500M from the city on top of what you get from the county and state that you wont be getting if you move to Brookpark. Even if the land swap didn't happen and they had to acquire the post office site an extra $500M isn't a small amount at all.  All while still creating a similar environment to what they want in Brookpark but in the city center and the Haslams would still be able to build what they want and control all of it. How is this option not completely viable, what am I missing?

Post office site appears too constrained to offer the amount of parking the Haslams want. I thought the land on the other side of the tracks could come into play and include a riverfront development, but either the Haslams didn't think of that or they did and found too many problems with it.

Haslam is really obsessed with parking.  What if the correctional facility next to the post office is relocated to the new site in Garfield Hts.  Perhaps that property could be used for more parking.

20 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

What if the correctional facility next to the post office is relocated to the new site in Garfield Hts.

 

That's a state facility.

Hopefully the Haslams don't look at the Wizards/Capitals deal for inspiration because it seems like the city of DC gave up a ton:

• $515 million over three years for upgrades to the arena (which seems crazy high for a basketball/hockey arena)
• Ted Leonsis gets to take over control of Gallery Place retail center (which is adjacent to the Capital One Center)
• Leonsis gains control of the WNBA Washington Mystics' arena (which is outside of downtown, but still in DC)
• Leonsis' Monumental group gets to use some DC-owned parking for its employees
• Plan for a new practice facility downtown for the Wizards (unclear who would pay for it - hopefully Leonsis)

This also happened despite DC having leverage to sue Leonsis for breaking the lease to stay in DC through 2047.

 

Source: https://wapo.st/3xdnMC9

34 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

Haslam is really obsessed with parking.  What if the correctional facility next to the post office is relocated to the new site in Garfield Hts.  Perhaps that property could be used for more parking.

Yeah, to be fair, as has been discussed before ~70% of Browns attendees are coming from outside Cuyahoga County so driving/parking is a realistic necessity. Per the earlier fantastic analysis by NorthShore, there are really only a few practical locations in all of Cuyahoga County, and downtown is the only place with the parking infrastructure to support a stadium without huge amounts of new surface parking. 

 

From a purely business perspective, I can absolutely understand why the Haslams want to capture all that parking revenue for themselves. They are basically increasing the cost of tickets by ~$10-$30 dollars depending on how many people per car, and how much they want they are willing to risk fan goodwill with high parking prices. Regardless, whatever extra amount they charge, it's all pure profit. 

15 hours ago, cadmen said:

I don't think opponents of the move are saying it would devastate downtown. I know l'm not. I am saying the Browns are part of the fabric of the downtown economy. When the do play there is a major uptick in spending and street energy. If we were a large, wealthy market that wouldn't matter. But we're not so every day of the year when SOMETHlNG of magnitude is going on it definitely helps the bottom line.

 

Leaving downtown does open up the lakefront for development sure, but it still doesn't guarantee it. You need cash (lot's of it) and leadership willing to lead (and fund) it. Will Haslem still do that? Of course not. He'll be building up Brook Park. 

 

Look l am biased. My preference for development is inside out. Like waves from a rock. But that's not how America works. We like our space. And we like new. So that's what we'll get. A new bauble to enjoy. Cheers Cleveland.

100%.  The hotels, restaurants, and bars in downtown Cleveland are already built and if the Haslams build the stadium in Brook Park we're going to see hotels/restaurants/bars (and maybe another highway exit) built there to serve teams, out-of-town fans, and the airport.  I have no doubt that that will hurt the downtown businesses.  Maybe not enough to close them down, but it will hurt. People generally are not going to tailgate in Brook Park and then travel into the downtown if there are hotels/bars/restaurants nearby.

 

I'd be fine with moving the stadium off the lake, and I think it's hard to tell whether the city actually makes or loses money on the stadium, but moving the stadium to Brook Park is definitely an invitation for more sprawl.  We're not growing -- sprawl is just leading us to poverty as we keep increasing our infrastructure maintenance bill.  If the Haslams want to move to Brook Park, I will fight against any public funding for the stadium.

10 minutes ago, Foraker said:

I'd be fine with moving the stadium off the lake, and I think it's hard to tell whether the city actually makes or loses money on the stadium, but moving the stadium to Brook Park is definitely an invitation for more sprawl.  We're not growing -- sprawl is just leading us to poverty as we keep increasing our infrastructure maintenance bill.  If the Haslams want to move to Brook Park, I will fight against any public funding for the stadium.

 

I've seen this point made a lot - that this move contributes to sprawl, and I don't really see it.  This move would be to an area that has been significantly developed for the last century.  The exact location supported two Ford Plants, so there's not going to be a need for huge infrastructure improvements, as if it were moving to some exurban greenfield location.  Most importantly, this area is already economically vital to the region's economy with NASA, the airport, the Ford plant, etc. so we should be actively encouraging development here, and if businesses pop up in the area because of the stadium, I think that's a good thing.

Serious question... what would the benefits of a 100% privately funded stadium be for the Haslams? 

 

Is it less red tape? More revenue earned/retained? Etc.?

 

Or would it essentially be giving up "free money" in their eyes to not go after public funds?

22 minutes ago, Ethan said:

 

From a purely business perspective, I can absolutely understand why the Haslams want to capture all that parking revenue for themselves. They are basically increasing the cost of tickets by ~$10-$30 dollars depending on how many people per car, and how much they want they are willing to risk fan goodwill with high parking prices. Regardless, whatever extra amount they charge, it's all pure profit. 

I agree, I don’t think you can slam a business for trying to make more money that’s literally their purpose they’re not a non-for profit also for them it certainly does suck to have all these downtown parking lots and garages profit off the back of your event and get nothing in return. To that end people will mostly drive together couldn’t they get more revenue by actually increasing the ticket prices per fan instead of indirectly raising them per car and they don’t have to deal with increase in property taxes and maintenance of a parking lot 

2 hours ago, Foraker said:

100%.  The hotels, restaurants, and bars in downtown Cleveland are already built and if the Haslams build the stadium in Brook Park we're going to see hotels/restaurants/bars (and maybe another highway exit) built there to serve teams, out-of-town fans, and the airport.  I have no doubt that that will hurt the downtown businesses.  Maybe not enough to close them down, but it will hurt. People generally are not going to tailgate in Brook Park and then travel into the downtown if there are hotels/bars/restaurants nearby.

 

I'd be fine with moving the stadium off the lake, and I think it's hard to tell whether the city actually makes or loses money on the stadium, but moving the stadium to Brook Park is definitely an invitation for more sprawl.  We're not growing -- sprawl is just leading us to poverty as we keep increasing our infrastructure maintenance bill.  If the Haslams want to move to Brook Park, I will fight against any public funding for the stadium.

First, I wholeheartedly agree with your last paragraph. But as far as out of town fans, I don't see numbers anywhere on how many fans stay the night for a Browns game but if only 30% live in Cuyahoga county I assume a lot of hotel rooms are needed. Even more for large concerts/events that we will supposedly get if a new dome is built.   Even if multiple hotels are built in Brookpark for the new stadium that doesn't come close to the amount that is downtown, last I checked there were close to 30 with more in the works.  So I would assume the majority of out of town fans and concert goers will still be staying downtown. Many of those people will still be using downtown businesses before/after concerts and games so maybe it wont be as big of a hit to downtown business as we think. 

Edited March 28, 20241 yr by TDi

On 3/27/2024 at 9:57 AM, 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. 

The problem seems to be that Bibb wont sell or even think about another piece of land downtown..  Bibb knows that without the Browns on the Lakefront the Landbridge is probably dead on his term.  I think that's the issue here, Bibb needs his legacy cemented by getting that started and he cant do it without the Browns.  If the Browns move to Brook park, they are not beholden to helping with the removal of the old stadium, they wipe their hands of that situation.  

they'll ironically be better connected to rapid transit in brook Park than downtown.  

 

figuring out what to do with the empty stadium will be a long ordeal. lol the city should compete with jimmy for events. 

21 hours 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?

 

TBH i think the soccer stadium goes with the Browns stadium...  

 

1 hour ago, GISguy said:

 

That's a state facility.

OK.  Well relocate it elsewhere in the city then.

37 minutes ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

I agree, I don’t think you can slam a business for trying to make more money that’s literally their purpose they’re not a non-for profit also for them it certainly does suck to have all these downtown parking lots and garages profit off the back of your event and get nothing in return. To that end people will mostly drive together couldn’t they get more revenue by actually increasing the ticket prices per fan instead of indirectly raising them per car and they don’t have to deal with increase in property taxes and maintenance of a parking lot 

Who's not-for-profit? That tax-exempt bulls**t ended in 2015. Or maybe I misread your reference.

 

Also, folks, people, civilians of rational thought, no one is building hotels in Brookpark to support 9 or 10 games a year. Jimmy and Dee are not building a ballpark village, and even if they miraculously did, in no way would it warrant more hotels. It's not like Brookpark is going to be some kind of international, national or even local destination outside of 9 or 10 dreary Midwest winter days. A Marriott and Hyatt would be mighty lonely near the Travelodge and Amber's Cabaret.

 

Edited March 28, 20241 yr by TBideon

3 minutes ago, TBideon said:

Who's not-for-profit? That tax-exempt bulls**t ended in 2015. Or maybe I misread your reference.

 

Also, folks, people, civilians of rational thought, no one is building hotels in Brookpark to support 9 or 10 games a year. Jimmy and Dee are not building a ballpark village, and even if they miraculously did, in no way would it warrant more hotels. It's not like Brookpark is going to be some kind of international, national or even local destination outside of 9 or 10 dreary Midwest winter days. A Marriott and Hyatt would be mighty lonely near the Travelodge and Amber's Cabaret.

 

 

The Haslams believe they can get more than 9-10 events at a domed stadium per year. It's why they want a domed stadium and love the idea of it being connected to an international airport. Speaking of which, what hotel(s) are currently located at the airport?

They also believed Johnny Football would be the next Tom Brady or that committing fraud for diesel fuel discounts was fair game. Or that they would develop a world-class lakefront attraction with all the bells and whistles. Or that a certain sexual predator quarterback wouldn't irreparably destroy a team's reputation.

 

They're grifters, and until agreements are signed, tenants have committed to deals, and cranes on the ground, I don't believe much of what they have to say.

5 minutes ago, TBideon said:

They also believed Johnny Football would be the next Tom Brady or that committing fraud for diesel fuel discounts was fair game. Or that they would develop a world-class lakefront attraction with all the bells and whistles. Or that a certain sexual predator quarterback wouldn't irreparably destroy a team's reputation.

 

They're grifters, and until agreements are signed, tenants have committed to deals, and cranes on the ground, I don't believe much of what they have to say.

Agree with everything. But they have unimaginable wealth, so we will have to watch powerlessly as they build a stadium almost nobody wants, and we’ll pay $1 billion + for the privilege. 

Does the $2B for the Brook Park site include all the road work - re-routing SR 237, additional highway ramps & interchanges, etc.  I'm guessing the answer is no.

12 minutes ago, TBideon said:

They also believed Johnny Football would be the next Tom Brady or that committing fraud for diesel fuel discounts was fair game. Or that they would develop a world-class lakefront attraction with all the bells and whistles. Or that a certain sexual predator quarterback wouldn't irreparably destroy a team's reputation.

 

They're grifters, and until agreements are signed, tenants have committed to deals, and cranes on the ground, I don't believe much of what they have to say.

 

That's why I said "the Haslams believe" rather than "I believe." But they also have produced more winning football seasons and playoff appearances in the 2020s for the Browns than at any time since the 1980s and they're competing with other NFL owners (aka billionaire boys club) for the next big thing, plus free agents, money, etc. So what do I believe? I believe my next article on whatever the Browns do regarding the stadium situation will attract lots of views.

Make sure to start with, "Seriously guys, what the f is with that stupid elf?" Or "Was the 32 patch meant to honor Jim Brown or the 32 women he abused and tried to murder throughout his violent past."

1 hour ago, TBideon said:

in no way would it warrant more hotels. It's not like Brookpark is going to be some kind of international, national or even local destination outside of 9 or 10 dreary Midwest winter days. A Marriott and Hyatt would be mighty lonely near the Travelodge and Amber's Cabaret

Actually I think this development would have a lot of synergy with a hotel. Especially if a direct pedestrian connection to the airport is created (which seems like an obvious move). In that case the hotel could get reasonably steady traffic from the airport, and a few guaranteed sellouts from stadium events. 

 

Actually, a direct pedestrian connection to the terminal could potentially support some mixed use development just from long layovers or airport delays. Something like a 4 or 5 hour layover may not be worth going into downtown, but that's long enough to justify walking to some shops shortly outside of the airport. You have to go back through security, but it usually isn't that bad at Hopkins anyway (or just get pre-check). Again same logic applies, steady traffic from airline passengers, plus some heavily packed days near events. 

 

This isn't even considering possible synergy with the I-X center. 

As much as I disapprove of a potential move to the burbs, I do believe landing in Brook Park might yield a higher-class airport hotel for CLE at some point.

All that one can observe from Route 237 in every direction these days is a rundown visual blight. This includes the condition of all the surrounding roads & ramps, and lots of derelict airport infrastructure, apparently left behind by Continental/United. None of this infrastructure is being held or guided to a higher level of maintenance by CLE airport officials.   For example, maybe paint some of those airport buildings?  Maybe cover up the remnants of Continental signage still advertising itself in soiled & chipped paint to passers-by.

 

The above may come off to some as crabby, but there's plenty of opportunity to be seized here that might bring drastic improvement to this part of the region.

Edited March 28, 20241 yr by ExPatClevGuy

I heard that the old Sheraton hotel will be coming down soon.

2 hours ago, Whipjacka said:

they'll ironically be better connected to rapid transit in brook Park than downtown.  

 

figuring out what to do with the empty stadium will be a long ordeal. lol the city should compete with jimmy for events. 

How do you figure? 

 

At least downtown you have the terminus of all rail lines, and not just the red line, within walking distance of the stadium. 

redline serves way more people than the blue line does. there's real park and rides for people that don't live along the lines.