https://abc7chicago.com/videoClip/14727930/

 

Here is a link to the planned dome stadium for The Chicago Bears designed by Manica

20 minutes ago, dave2017 said:

https://abc7chicago.com/videoClip/14727930/

 

Here is a link to the planned dome stadium for The Chicago Bears designed by Manica

 

This looks cool.  We should do a similar design except rotate the field 90 degrees and have big glass walls looking out into the lake and back up to the skyline. 

Connect to the convention center, malls, train stations.  

On 4/22/2024 at 8:34 PM, 646empire said:

Yupp they plan to stay in the city after all, a new lakefront stadium.

https://abc7chicago.com/amp/chicago-bears-stadium-news-today-team-to-unveil-plans-for-new-lakefront-on-museum-campus/14716201/

Chicago tax payers will also be paying a significant amount towards this.

 

On 4/23/2024 at 2:25 PM, TBideon said:

McCaskey demolished the race track; otherwise, the Bears aren't doing s**t for the time being. I imagine they'll try to find a buyer at some point.

This site will likely be easily unloaded to developers. It's in a desirable suburb right next to a Metra commuter rail station, so is a prime spot for mixed-use residential development.

 

On 4/23/2024 at 1:30 PM, dwolfi01 said:

I was just pointing out that they had a similar situation where the owners bought land in the suburbs so everyone was expecting a move outside the city but they ended up staying within the city. So just cautioning everyone jumping the gun with the airport land here in Cleveland. Still a lot to be discussed it seems.

On the surface it's similar but the logistics in Chicago are more favorable for the Bears staying downtown than the Browns IMO. Commitment of public money aside;

- The Bears have an available spot next to the existing stadium where they can build while the existing remains in use.

- The Brook Park site, while not in city limits, is right on the border and well served by the airport, highways, and rail. The Bears suburban location is further out and not as well served by transportation options.

- The Bears suburban site will be desirable to developers and can likely be sold off in a relatively quick timeframe, but I don't believe the same is true with the Brook Park site. 

 

 

Edited April 24, 20241 yr by Rustbelter

4 hours ago, dave2017 said:

https://abc7chicago.com/videoClip/14727930/

 

Here is a link to the planned dome stadium for The Chicago Bears designed by Manica

Interesting that they would be putting on the lakefront when, in CLE, most want it off of the lakefront. I realize though that it is not feasible to build the dome on a landfill. I would just love to see a state-of-the-art domed facility built in/near downtown CLE.

2 hours ago, TMart said:

Interesting that they would be putting on the lakefront when, in CLE, most want it off of the lakefront. I realize though that it is not feasible to build the dome on a landfill. I would just love to see a state-of-the-art domed facility built in/near downtown CLE.

Has anybody actually proven the repeated talking point that a “dome is not buildable on a landfill”? 

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/sports/nfl/chicago-bears/how-bears-plan-to-fund-chicago-stadium-project-and-how-much-it-will-cost-taxpayers/3419423/#:~:text=Bears COO and executive vice,billion for two other phases

 

How Bears plan to fund Chicago stadium project, and how much it will cost taxpayers

 

 

A breakdown on the costs, with this project, whether or not it happens, a semi-barometer for the new Cleveland Browns stadium. All phases total, Bears would pay about $2 billion, city/state taxpayers $2.4 billion (Jesus f'ing Christ), $300 million from the great unknown, and zero talk about a profit-sharing arrangement for the latest gift.

 

And here's the idiot mayor praying the taxpayers will pay the billionaires billions so the multi-millionaires have a pretty toy to play in front of the millionaire suburbanites.

 

 

No, this isn't AI or an SNL bit. I swear of Bibb ever did this, I'd be the new Pugu for a hot minute.

 

In closing - f all of this noise. Not a dime without a profit-sharing agreement. 

 

Edited April 25, 20241 yr by TBideon

1 hour ago, TBideon said:

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/sports/nfl/chicago-bears/how-bears-plan-to-fund-chicago-stadium-project-and-how-much-it-will-cost-taxpayers/3419423/#:~:text=Bears COO and executive vice,billion for two other phases

 

How Bears plan to fund Chicago stadium project, and how much it will cost taxpayers

 

 

A breakdown on the costs, with this project, whether or not it happens, a semi-barometer for the new Cleveland Browns stadium. All phases total, Bears would pay about $2 billion, city/state taxpayers $2.4 billion (Jesus f'ing Christ), $300 million from the great unknown, and zero talk about a profit-sharing arrangement for the latest gift.

 

And here's the idiot mayor praying the taxpayers will pay the billionaires billions so the multi-millionaires have a pretty toy to play in front of the millionaire suburbanites.

 

 

No, this isn't AI or an SNL bit. I swear of Bibb ever did this, I'd be the new Pugu for a hot minute.

 

In closing - f all of this noise. Not a dime without a profit-sharing agreement. 

 

That's not the mayor of Chicago but, regardless, simultaneously hilarious and cringe.  An opening prayer from a $9.95 Reverand for a press conference...lol

Edited April 25, 20241 yr by Oxford19

Again, a retractable roof was planned as an addition to the lakefront stadium in the past. I don’t recall any story that came out saying it couldn’t be done, This was by our own @KJP:

 

Cleveland Browns: Is the Owner-in-Waiting Trying to Put a Lid on City Officials?

 

KEN PRENDERGAST
SEPTEMBER 19, 2012

 

Northeast Ohio sports fans are abuzz after prospective Cleveland Browns owner Jimmy Haslam III said he would bring in three prominent stadium architectural firms to suggest changes to the city-owned lakefront stadium. He said changes could include putting a roof on the 13-year-old, open-air facility.

 

But did Haslam suggest the roof to put a lid on any push-back from some city officials who have long wanted a covered stadium?

 

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1340833-cleveland-browns-is-the-owner-in-waiting-trying-to-put-a-lid-on-city-officials

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chicago will get a SB from this and I suspect will also have the Fire MLS team as an additional tenant. About as good as you'll get for an NFL stadium. Although where will the fat, lazy, hysterical, scared suburbanites park? Oh wait nobody cares in a big boy city.

Edited April 25, 20241 yr by snakebite

14 hours ago, TMart said:

Interesting that they would be putting on the lakefront when, in CLE, most want it off of the lakefront.  

There is a big difference between Cleveland and Chicago. Cleveland lakefront is cluttered with a lot of non-accessible areas.  That is not the case in Chicago, so putting a stadium on their lakefront is not a big deal.

1 hour ago, LibertyBlvd said:

There is a big difference between Cleveland and Chicago. Cleveland lakefront is cluttered with a lot of non-accessible areas.  That is not the case in Chicago, so putting a stadium on their lakefront is not a big deal.

True, however traffic and actual access to the Bears stadium is horrendous and a LOT worse than Cleveland's. Chicago has train access nearby, however just like every team, the majority of game attendees are suburbanites creating enormous amounts of congestion.

21 hours ago, dave2017 said:

https://abc7chicago.com/videoClip/14727930/

 

Here is a link to the planned dome stadium for The Chicago Bears designed by Manica

Integrating the stadium into the surrounding area instead of just planting it there seems like common sense but yet it is a rarity. But looking at this rendering I vote that we should tear down all the historical buildings and newer developments along East Blvd and build the stadium in University Circle across from the Museum of Art. (I'm clearly joking about the last part). 

Edited April 25, 20241 yr by MyPhoneDead

8 hours ago, Oldmanladyluck said:

Again, a retractable roof was planned as an addition to the lakefront stadium in the past. I don’t recall any story that came out saying it couldn’t be done, This was by our own @KJP:

 

Cleveland Browns: Is the Owner-in-Waiting Trying to Put a Lid on City Officials?

 

KEN PRENDERGAST
SEPTEMBER 19, 2012

 

Northeast Ohio sports fans are abuzz after prospective Cleveland Browns owner Jimmy Haslam III said he would bring in three prominent stadium architectural firms to suggest changes to the city-owned lakefront stadium. He said changes could include putting a roof on the 13-year-old, open-air facility.

 

But did Haslam suggest the roof to put a lid on any push-back from some city officials who have long wanted a covered stadium?

 

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1340833-cleveland-browns-is-the-owner-in-waiting-trying-to-put-a-lid-on-city-officials

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It was said to be an architectural nightmare. 

1 hour ago, MyPhoneDead said:

Integrating the stadium into the surrounding area instead of just planting it there seems like common sense but yet it is a rarity. But looking at this rendering I vote that we should tear down all the historical buildings and newer developments along East Blvd and build the stadium in University Circle across from the Museum of Art.

You make a good point on that too. A lot of the research behind stadiums not acting as economic drivers are from the days of when even stadiums which were built in urban centers, they were still isolated and often cut off from their surrounding neighborhoods by surface parking lots and expressways.

 

If they can build this with a roof over it which will bring in big major events and also host two anchor tenants in a venue that blends into it's surrounding area then I would say this is the bar for what a football stadium can be in this country, just a shame we are probably not in the frame for MLS. Good for Chicago if they can get this done, it's been a bit of a whipping boy in recent years for it's problems with crime.

 

People really need to understand that these stadium and arena deals require compromise. Putting a hard fist down and saying no public money is just as naive as giving out a free pot of cash with no return on investment. I don't want a flat out bad deal for the tax payer and the community but I also don't want to lose the team, and maybe I'm being naive if I think most people want something similar.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 25, 20241 yr by snakebite

This downtown San Diego stadium + convention center economic study was commissioned by the team (biased) and the convention market for SD and CLE are a lot different, but anyhow FWIW: 

 

The Study's Conclusion

The economic impact study concluded that "the total permanent effect of the convadium is the combination of the impact of the Chargers' operations in San Diego and the impact of the Convention Center expansion. Employment impact is an increase of more than 6,400 jobs, of which more than 4,200 are direct and 2,200 are indirect and induced. The combined direct expenditures of more than $300 million will have a total estimated impact of nearly $400 million on regional output, $176 million on labor income, and $246 million on value added."

 

Carol Kim, Director of Community Impact for the San Diego County Building and Construction Trades Council, applauded the findings of the economic study.

 

"The convadium will result in thousands of new good-paying jobs for San Diegans, plus new apprenticeship training opportunities for community members to 'earn while they learn,' receive full family medical coverage, retirement benefits, and enter into a life-long middle-class career without college debt. This is a clear boost to our economy and a benefit for our communities," said Kim.

 

https://www.chargers.com/news/economic-impact-study-on-convadium-reveals-wide-array-of-economic-benefit-138986

38 minutes ago, snakebite said:

People really need to understand that these stadium and arena deals require compromise. Putting a hard fist down and saying no public money is just as naive as giving out a free pot of cash with no return on investment. I don't want a flat out bad deal for the tax payer and the community but I also don't want to lose the team, and maybe I'm being naive if I think most people don't want something similar.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know I'm repeating myself, but since the NFL prohibits city/county team ownership, then why not a profit/revenue-sharing agreement with the Browns so the taxpayers are assured a proper investment and return. That way everybody wins, and we aren't fleeced for a billion. It seems pretty obvious that's the best approach.

52 minutes ago, surfohio said:

This downtown San Diego stadium + convention center economic study was commissioned by the team (biased) and the convention market for SD and CLE are a lot different, but anyhow FWIW: 

 

Except we already have a stadium and convention center. That has to drastically change the calculus. 

23 minutes ago, Mendo said:

 

Except we already have a stadium and convention center. That has to drastically change the calculus. 

 

Two things: 1. we do have our stadium but it needs massive amount of investment and 2. our convention center cannot host larger events that end up at the IX Center. 

 

The calculus is different of course, but I'd argue it's not drastically so. 

Edited April 25, 20241 yr by surfohio

9 minutes ago, surfohio said:

 

Two things: 1. we do have our stadium but it needs massive amount of investment and 2. our convention center cannot host larger events that end up at the IX Center. 

 

The calculus is different of course, but I'd argue it's not drastically so. 

 

There are some events just better suited for the IX center. Renovating the Browns stadium isn't going to change that. The convention center is already far bigger than the open space of the Browns stadium. And it's purpose-built for conventions, with an attached hotel.

 

It doesn't make a lot of business sense to spend a billion dollars to compete with our existing convention center we already spent $500 million for. It's one thing to say the stadium is old and needs renovation, but let's not pretend there will be any major economic impact.

 

Sorry if i upset anyone.

 

I could care less what Chicago is doing.

 

 

41 minutes ago, Mendo said:

 

There are some events just better suited for the IX center. Renovating the Browns stadium isn't going to change that. The convention center is already far bigger than the open space of the Browns stadium. And it's purpose-built for conventions, with an attached hotel.

 

It doesn't make a lot of business sense to spend a billion dollars to compete with our existing convention center we already spent $500 million for. It's one thing to say the stadium is old and needs renovation, but let's not pretend there will be any major economic impact.

 

 

I'm not an expert on conventions but I do know there's a big differential between contiguous and not-contiguous space. Otherwise the IX Center would never be more suitable for events. 

 

Also I don't recall anyone ever suggesting a covered Lakefront stadium would compete with the CC, but would be an extension of it. 

 

As for economic impact I'm more in the doubting side of how beneficial stadiums are for the economy. Then again I think we all are wanting to see an unbiased, third party cost-benefit analysis that's directly tied into the scenario in Cleveland and all of its own unique variables. 

 

It's actually crazy this has not happened with so much public money potentially at stake, unless of course the powers that be already know the answers and don't want to publicize them. 

 

Edited April 25, 20241 yr by surfohio

5 hours ago, snakebite said:

You make a good point on that too. A lot of the research behind stadiums not acting as economic drivers are from the days of when even stadiums which were built in urban centers, they were still isolated and often cut off from their surrounding neighborhoods by surface parking lots and expressways.

 

If they can build this with a roof over it which will bring in big major events and also host two anchor tenants in a venue that blends into it's surrounding area then I would say this is the bar for what a football stadium can be in this country, just a shame we are probably not in the frame for MLS. Good for Chicago if they can get this done, it's been a bit of a whipping boy in recent years for it's problems with crime.

 

People really need to understand that these stadium and arena deals require compromise. Putting a hard fist down and saying no public money is just as naive as giving out a free pot of cash with no return on investment. I don't want a flat out bad deal for the tax payer and the community but I also don't want to lose the team, and maybe I'm being naive if I think most people want something similar.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think saying "no public money" is naive. My first reaction when I read that was to wince. I understand public money will be involved, but the louder the public demands no public money, the more it moves the Overton window closer to less public money than there would otherwise be.

 

I'm a huge Browns fan and a huge Cleveland advocate, but for the love of God, no public money please. If it means we lose the team someday, so be it. Cleveland can thrive regardless. 

 

 

Instead of all this discussion about a new stadium, we should build a new s**tty old stadium.

4 hours ago, surfohio said:

I'm not an expert on conventions but I do know there's a big differential between contiguous and not-contiguous space. Otherwise the IX Center would never be more suitable for events. 

 

Also I don't recall anyone ever suggesting a covered Lakefront stadium would compete with the CC, but would be an extension of it. 

 

As for economic impact I'm more in the doubting side of how beneficial stadiums are for the economy. Then again I think we all are wanting to see an unbiased, third party cost-benefit analysis that's directly tied into the scenario in Cleveland and all of its own unique variables. 

 

It's actually crazy this has not happened with so much public money potentially at stake, unless of course the powers that be already know the answers and don't want to publicize them. 

 

Agreed on that. The IX center has >500k sq ft of contiguous space and is surrounded by a sea of parking. Neither venue downtown will compete with that. The convention center has 220k sq ft of contiguous open space, not counting the smaller meeting rooms and medical mart. The Browns stadium if you converted the open field between the seats is only about 90k sq ft. The stadium obviously has tons of unobstructed seating and no support columns because, you know... sports. But it's substantially smaller than the convention center.

 

https://www.clevelandconventions.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/HCCC-Atrium-Maps-Specs.pdf 

 

There are events suitable for large stadiums but there isn't much synergy between the two venues and it makes little sense to tie them together for "economic impact". All that does is artificially boost the stadium renovation numbers. It's disingenuous.

12 hours ago, Mendo said:

 

Agreed on that. The IX center has >500k sq ft of contiguous space and is surrounded by a sea of parking. Neither venue downtown will compete with that. The convention center has 220k sq ft of contiguous open space, not counting the smaller meeting rooms and medical mart. The Browns stadium if you converted the open field between the seats is only about 90k sq ft. The stadium obviously has tons of unobstructed seating and no support columns because, you know... sports. But it's substantially smaller than the convention center.

 

https://www.clevelandconventions.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/HCCC-Atrium-Maps-Specs.pdf 

 

There are events suitable for large stadiums but there isn't much synergy between the two venues and it makes little sense to tie them together for "economic impact". All that does is artificially boost the stadium renovation numbers. It's disingenuous.

Stadiums do not make for good convention venues.   They are too big, and the ceilings too high. 

 

However, convention centers attached to stadiums make great ancillary space for large scale events (NCAA championshipes, national political conventions, etc).      

Tbh there are events that the IX Center has that don’t even need the size, Bridal shows etc. I honestly wonder why those aren’t downtown. 

10 hours ago, MyPhoneDead said:

Tbh there are events that the IX Center has that don’t even need the size, Bridal shows etc. I honestly wonder why those aren’t downtown. 

They cater to the suburban crowd with ample parking.   Plus its a non-union house for labor, so they can undercut the downtown convention center.  

browns show brookpark renderings to state reps...  

 

https://signalcleveland.org/cleveland-browns-huddle-with-state-lawmakers-to-show-off-brook-park-stadium-plans/

Ug, just making an f'ing decision already. 

 

I hope DeWine takes a page out of Pritzker's playbook: no state funding without ample negotiations. For instance, the McCaskey's pretty presentation DIDN'T mention their commission for concerts and other events at the stadium, which Pritzker, already adamant against subsidizing these grifts, pointed out immediately.

 

I hope DeWine, despite his political immorality, maintains a similar cynical stance. Party of small government spending, remember that you dope.

 

Edited April 29, 20241 yr by TBideon

5 hours ago, lockdog said:

browns show brookpark renderings to state reps...  

 

https://signalcleveland.org/cleveland-browns-huddle-with-state-lawmakers-to-show-off-brook-park-stadium-plans/

Yeah for more sprawl, more car culture, more decentralization, more environmental harm, more drunk driving!!!!

 

Can't wait to go to Condado Brook Park. Crocker Park just isn't cool enough anymore. This will do us until the Guardians want the next Ballpark Village afterwards out at Rockside Road. I love the race to the bottom.

It’s interesting they went to the state reps first. If they need to go to the voters, they better be ready to spend big on a PR campaign. I’m not sure it’s a winning proposition when property taxes are expected to go up quite a bit already. 
 

This is just my hunch but I think getting money for a Cleveland stadium would be easier because suburbanites view Cleveland as our region’s home and mentally have a sense of ownership of it. It doesn’t seem logical that someone in Euclid, for example, would vote to subsidize development in another suburb—especially when funding in many suburbs is stretched on their own. 

 

Browns want 50/50 public/private cost-sharing for either stadium site
By Ken Prendergast / April 29, 2024

 

When Cleveland Browns representatives last week showed state lawmakers designs for optional stadiums in Downtown Cleveland or in suburban Brook Park, they also shared something else — a proposed public-private cost sharing arrangement.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2024/04/29/browns-want-50-50-public-private-cost-sharing-for-either-stadium-site/

I thought that someone posted a couple of weeks ago that the Browns had decided to definitely move to Brook Park and that they were going to pay for the whole thing themselves. 

"One item not shown in the presentation was a direct pedestrian connector, such as a moving walkway, from Hopkins International Airport to the new stadium site. Sources say the Browns have not considered the uniqueness of being able to walk from your airplane seat to your stadium seat without ever going outside. It would be the only National Football League stadium where such a connection is possible.

Who would do that though?  That's a very rare and unique traveler who has no need to check into a hotel first and deposit bags and carry-ons before going to the game, and vice-versa after the game.

Post number two. The Browns are clearly living in some sort of dreamworld given the amount of public financing they are allegedly looking for.

Post number three. If the Browns are looking for more than $1 billion in public subsidies for a Dome stadium in Brook Park, then all of that money is going to have to come from the state of Ohio. Obviously Cleveland not gonna contribute. Cuyahoga does not have the money, given all its other infrastructure issues, including the jail and the new courthouse and Brook Park would only be able to contribute about $.50. What do you think the odds are that the state of Ohio is going to give Northeast Ohio $1 billion? 

1 hour ago, sizzlinbeef said:

"One item not shown in the presentation was a direct pedestrian connector, such as a moving walkway, from Hopkins International Airport to the new stadium site. Sources say the Browns have not considered the uniqueness of being able to walk from your airplane seat to your stadium seat without ever going outside. It would be the only National Football League stadium where such a connection is possible.

Who would do that though?  That's a very rare and unique traveler who has no need to check into a hotel first and deposit bags and carry-ons before going to the game, and vice-versa after the game.

But what if the hotel is next to the Stadium across from the airport in a small mixed use development? 

 

--

 

How is renovating the existing stadium going to cost 1.2 billion? That is an absurd number. I have to assume that's inflated. 

 

--

 

Assuming we are looking at paying half regardless, then I'm fully in favor of keeping it on the lakefront. Saving at least 600 million in public dollars is a no brainer. Personally I think it might be even more, as I see no reason for a stadium renovation to cost 1.2 billion. Hopefully the city, country, and even the state, negotiate to keep public funds investment low. We have a functional stadium. No reason to spend over a billion tax payer dollars for a new stadium when the old one works just fine. 

1 hour ago, sizzlinbeef said:

Who would do that though?  That's a very rare and unique traveler who has no need to check into a hotel first and deposit bags and carry-ons before going to the game, and vice-versa after the game.

 the red line also ends at the airport...

How were those assholes not laughed out of the room? 50/50 cost sharing but not profit sharing? They can **** right off to San Antonio or Salt Lake City. 

2 hours ago, KJP said:

 

Browns want 50/50 public/private cost-sharing for either stadium site
By Ken Prendergast / April 29, 2024

 

When Cleveland Browns representatives last week showed state lawmakers designs for optional stadiums in Downtown Cleveland or in suburban Brook Park, they also shared something else — a proposed public-private cost sharing arrangement.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2024/04/29/browns-want-50-50-public-private-cost-sharing-for-either-stadium-site/

 

If public funds will make up half, we should get an ownership share in the team and profits from the facility 

1 hour ago, Htsguy said:

Post number three. If the Browns are looking for more than $1 billion in public subsidies for a Dome stadium in Brook Park, then all of that money is going to have to come from the state of Ohio. Obviously Cleveland not gonna contribute. Cuyahoga does not have the money, given all its other infrastructure issues, including the jail and the new courthouse and Brook Park would only be able to contribute about $.50. What do you think the odds are that the state of Ohio is going to give Northeast Ohio $1 billion? 

 

A TIF is going to be a big part of the public piece. City income taxes of people working there are going to help pay for the stadium. So might the city and county property taxes above the land. 

1 hour ago, Htsguy said:

Post number three. If the Browns are looking for more than $1 billion in public subsidies for a Dome stadium in Brook Park, then all of that money is going to have to come from the state of Ohio. Obviously Cleveland not gonna contribute. Cuyahoga does not have the money, given all its other infrastructure issues, including the jail and the new courthouse and Brook Park would only be able to contribute about $.50. What do you think the odds are that the state of Ohio is going to give Northeast Ohio $1 billion? 

Agreed. I don't see how the Brook Park site is possible if the Browns are truly looking for a 50/50 split. And, as noted in the article, this is the price tag for the stadium alone. The infrastructure improvements needed would not be cheap.

4 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

A TIF is going to be a big part of the public piece. City income taxes of people working there are going to help pay for the stadium. So might the city and county property taxes above the land. 

I am assuming you are talking about the new lakefront TIF that was recently created or are you talking about your traditional TIF.

If it is the new lakefront TIF that was created recently - then that would apply only to the downtown stadium

2 minutes ago, simplythis said:

I am assuming you are talking about the new lakefront TIF that was recently created or are you talking about your traditional TIF.

If it is the new lakefront TIF that was created recently - then that would apply only to the downtown stadium

 

No, a TIF in Brook Park.

2 hours ago, Htsguy said:

I thought that someone posted a couple of weeks ago that the Browns had decided to definitely move to Brook Park and that they were going to pay for the whole thing themselves. 

You’re probably referring to my post. I did preface it to say my friend is a solid source, but not an insider and it was FWIW. 

It’s depressing enough to think that the BP site may go ahead, although from @KJP’s article, it’s even more depressing to learn that just a third of a mile is considered a ten minute walk. Only in America. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is all of that parking going to be surface parking?  God, i hope not.  Those lots will look like a sea of concrete.

 

 

41 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

No, a TIF in Brook Park.

I am assuming you are (or the Browns will be) suggesting that the TIF will be supported by all the supposed ancillary development around the stadium.  You know the land that will not be taken up by the sea of surface parking.  I am a frugal investor, but even if I wasn't, I would never put my money in some development in such a crappy location, especially in a region with a stagnant population with many competing entertainment districts, including, supposedly a new development a few miles down the road which Haslam is proposing in Berea.

Should have known it was Patton from Strongsville organizing. That guy loves not looking out for what is best for the public. 

29 minutes ago, Htsguy said:

I am assuming you are (or the Browns will be) suggesting that the TIF will be supported by all the supposed ancillary development around the stadium.  You know the land that will not be taken up by the sea of surface parking.  I am a frugal investor, but even if I wasn't, I would never put my money in some development in such a crappy location, especially in a region with a stagnant population with many competing entertainment districts, including, supposedly a new development a few miles down the road which Haslam is proposing in Berea.

 

The TIF will also be supported by all of the admissions taxes and income taxes paid by stadium employees. That would also include taxes on players, entertainers and anyone else earning money in that venue. This is a common practice....

 

https://awmcap.com/blog/jock-tax-2020