I say let them go to Brook Park if they want. Free the downtown lakefront. I ain't voting for any levies though. I think the tides are finally turning against stadium subsidies in this country. The past 5-10 years have seen a lot of scrutiny on stadium deals, that wasn't part of the conversation in the 1990s. Kansas City won the super bowl and then they voted down a stadium deal a few months later. No more LA to threaten to move to and the optics are horrible. It's actually something that isn't polarized along the typical lines either. Nobody likes it. I'm not saying they won't get anything, but I don't think voters or politicians are going to get pushed around to the extent they have been in the past.

 

I don't think that Brook Park will actually happen though. I think we're getting a renovation of the existing stadium, this is all smoke and mirrors.

 

Same thing just happened in DC / Virginia with the Wizards and Capitals. They announced a big deal with Virginia to move to Alexandria and create a dumb village, then surprise, nope that isn't happening they're just renovating Capital One arena.

Edited May 3, 20241 yr by mu2010

On 5/2/2024 at 3:04 PM, B767PILOT said:

And if Cleveland isnt on the hook for a dome, that billion they are being asked to pony up could be used toward a really fantastic lakefront.  

But that "billion" doesn't exist. 

Seems to me with as successful as the NFL is, they could finance a good portion of stadiums for their teams.

6 hours ago, G00pie said:

Maybe Haslam can get Ikea to sign on in Brookpark, or maybe some other brands that arent in the Cleveland area

How about an Ikea on the current stadium land(fill)?

7 hours ago, GISguy said:

Uh guys, traffic is actually going to disappear if they build in BP. It will be so much more convenient! And quick in and out! (according to supporters).

 

God forbid you need to drive to the airport on gameday (or! make a plane after dropping off a rental car- that experience is already miserable as is). 

Reading the comments of people who think traffic and parking will be better on other sites have made me laugh. So we go from having all of the cars spread out around Downtown with 20+ entrance/exit ramps and 3 train lines nearby, to one massive parking lot with 5 or 6 entrances and 2 highway entrance/exit ramps. 

 

It's going to be slightly better than getting out of Blossom, and with 3X the amount of cars. And the cheapest spot will be a minimum of $60, maybe $75-80 by the time we get to 2030. Jimmy owns all of the land and has no competition for parking, people will be stuck paying whatever he wants. People were whining when the Muni Lot raised the price of RVs to $70, an RV in Brook Park might be closer to $150. 

 

I guess by then we will have new trains so they could possibly run blue/green lines to Brook Park on gamedays, but that would disrupt the schedules of these lines so much that I'm not sure RTA does it. Maybe one or 2 trains, but not the full fleet. It would also be about an hour ride from the Green Rd or Van Aken stops, not sure how many people are interested in doing that.  But a lot of the people who want the stadium in Brook Park would absolutely never ride public transit anyways. 

On 5/3/2024 at 5:24 PM, TMart said:

But that "billion" doesn't exist. 

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2024/05/could-ohio-taxpayers-chip-in-600m-for-a-new-browns-stadium-a-top-state-lawmaker-says-the-state-doesnt-have-it.html?utm_source=instagram&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=likeshopme&utm_content=www.instagram.com/p/C6roV-DvzY-
 

Or 600million 

 

“We don’t have 600m to give…I mean it’s really easy to not support it when you don’t have it” 

 

so pretty much as could have been predicted the state will choose the least expensive option 

If the State gives the Browns 600m then they would have to give the same amount to the bengals

On 5/3/2024 at 5:26 PM, TMart said:

Seems to me with as successful as the NFL is, they could finance a good portion of stadiums for their teams.

 

Agreed -- the owners should create an "NFL bank" to fund stadium construction and renovations.

How much would these franchises be worth if they were saddled in billions in stadium debt every 20 years. Probably wouldn't see so many new stadiums. 

Cities are pushing back on sports teams subsidies. https://www.crainscleveland.com/sports-recreation/voters-politicians-push-back-stadium-subsidies

Really important part of the article in my opinion that frames the whole topic: 

 

Quote

Bradbury, along with economists Dennis Coates and Brad Humphreys, recently conducted a comprehensive review of more than 130 studies of the economic impact of sports teams and stadiums.

 

The consensus? Stadiums don't pay off. The home cities aren’t any wealthier. They don’t have more jobs. They don’t have higher income. They don’t earn higher wages than cities without them. Most of the spending at these stadiums is reallocated money, Bradbury said, cash that would have gone to local restaurants, bowling alleys or movie theaters.

 

Yes, major events like the Super Bowl or the Final Four bring new money to those cities, but that economic impact doesn’t come close to covering the public price tag, Bradbury said.

 

Bradbury vigorously fights against the idea that there’s “debate” about whether stadium subsidies are worth it, calling that a “false balance.”

 

“Economists aren't skeptical,” he wrote this week. “The debate is settled.”

 

https://www.wkyc.com/article/sports/nfl/browns/cleveland-browns-200-million-development-near-berea-headquarters/95-387aee26-af6d-449d-b578-f505ad4bd7ae?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR2dv1ZwYSaD3H1j7P2GS0Ug7xwrjGeVUDFFtkz6Fz8D4nb6PGS2ZlA0EO4_aem_AfrAtkM0on6TmmpjRyvknv3E_Q9ntaAUN8CQVILDSzX9SU0l7xvvNuwNsbN9Dfd9_13-ojsT7q80UcGGg0VEbFUZ

 

Differing views, values on Downtown Lakefront causing Browns to consider Brook Park
By Ken Prendergast / May 9, 2024

 

As the old saying goes, “Show me your budget — I will tell you what you value.” Along those same lines, if you want to know what Cleveland city officials vs. the owners of the Cleveland Browns want from their returns on investment in the lakefront, show me your actions, not your words.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2024/05/09/differing-views-values-on-downtown-lakefront-causing-browns-to-consider-brook-park/

Great article! This philosophic difference was readily apparent with the diverging proposals. I think Jimmy’s World makes much more sense on the waterfront and to be fair to Haslam, why is the city more supportive of Dan Gilbert basically doing the same thing on the river? I get there are differences but there are also similarities in that public money is being used to further private interests. 

 

I think the mayor’s position makes perfect sense. It’s not morally right or politically smart to give precious resources to people who don’t need it or reside in the city. But I still don’t really think their lakefront park idea makes any sense. Are people really going to want to go to a park that is so isolated and physically hidden by a giant stadium (let’s be honest even if it’s empty that thing isn’t getting knocked down anytime soon).
 

It seems to me it’s in everyone’s best interest to come up with a compromise. 

Edited May 9, 20241 yr by coneflower

10 minutes ago, coneflower said:

Great article! This philosophic difference was readily apparent with the diverging proposals. I think Jimmy’s World makes much more sense on the waterfront and to be fair to Haslam, why is the city more supportive of Dan Gilbert basically doing the same thing on the river? I get there are differences but there are also similarities in that public money is being used to further private interests. 

 

I think the mayor’s position makes perfect sense. It’s not morally right or politically smart to give precious resources to people who don’t need it or reside in the city. But I still don’t really think their lakefront park idea makes any sense. Are people really going to want to go to a park that is so isolated and physically hidden by a giant stadium (let’s be honest even if it’s empty that thing isn’t getting knocked down anytime soon).
 

It seems to me it’s in everyone’s best interest to come up with a compromise. 

I think because Dan Gilbert and Bedrock have actually already done so much for the city already that Haslam has not.

What I really find frustrating about this current Browns stadium saga is that it is now apparently another negative factor delaying the development of the lakefront. For the last 40 years it always seems to be one thing or another that scraps a lakefront plan. We never seem to be able to get the shovels in the ground and make something happen. Now the delay is that nobody can agree on the stadium situation. It’s always one thing or another.

I'm so rich and white that I have visited the downtown lakefront, specifically, probably 2x in my 27 years in town. One was a free - FREE! - museum day. What privilege!

 

So, I can go anytime I want, apparently, and I average once every dozen plus years. 

 

This is a real concern of Mayor Bibb, of whom I was formerly a fan? 

 

I bet you Columbus would BUILD a lake to put the fanciest possible domed stadium on if it would help them get a team. 

 

Edited May 9, 20241 yr by eyehrtfood

This whole stadium issue has me so conflicted.

 

The dreamer in me wants a dome on the lakefront connected by a landbridge plus a bunch of residential highrises (some with for sale units), and some kind of park/water access.  The realist knows a dome is completely unaffordable and a waste of public money. So a good compromise, for me at least, is a refurbished open air stadium with the other stuff. 

 

I can understand Bibb's concerns but turning his back on at least some of the Haslam proposol is short-sighted. By doing so he is turning his back on a billionaire who will be investing hundreds of millions on our lakefront. If Haslam is making that kind of investment l don't have a problem with him adding to his already substantial bottom line. 

 

Of course it's a rigged game but there aren't a lot of local billionaires waiting in line behind him. Bibb wants us to use the lakefront. If the city doesn't act here l'm afraid it's going to be another couple of decades before any more lakefront development takes place. 

 

This speculation may all be moot though. But unless things change it doesn't sound like the state will be contributing a lot. If that is the case so much for a dome in BP. I think the best solution for all parties is the plan from 2 years ago. An open air stadium along with a landbridge and some residential highrises. Parking and egress will always be a problem but then, how many days is that exactly? Just a few. This seems to be the best compromise. Everyone gets something while keeping the costs at a more reasonable rate. 

39 minutes ago, Htsguy said:

What I really find frustrating about this current Browns stadium saga is that it is now apparently another negative factor delaying the development of the lakefront. For the last 40 years it always seems to be one thing or another that scraps a lakefront plan. We never seem to be able to get the shovels in the ground and make something happen. Now the delay is that nobody can agree on the stadium situation. It’s always one thing or another.

I think we just need a Carl Fisher like person to build barrier islands off of our harbor walls. 
 

then we’ll have our own Miami Beach and the browns can build out as much as possible at the current location 

Edited May 9, 20241 yr by BoomerangCleRes

I enjoyed the article as well. One minor nitpick, though it may be a distinction without a difference, the City's lakefront proposal was crafted based on community feedback. While I can't know for sure, I did go to a few of them, and my impression is that the design they came up with is reflective of the feedback they received. 

 

One reason the riverfront may have been more accepted by the city, is that if I remember correctly Bedrock was quick to seek public feedback, whereas I don't think the same can be said about the Haslams' proposal, which seemed dropped on the city. I can understand how that could have come across as pushing a millionaire-funded, expert-created vision onto the masses. 

 

I also think it's likely the case that if more of Cleveland's lakefront was devoted to parks, people likely would have been more receptive to a development heavy proposal such as the Haslams'. While I'd personally be happy with more parks on the river, I think it's clear that a greater share of riverfront land is publicly accessible than lakefront, and more is being added in the relatively near future. That also probably contributed to the different reactions. 

honestly, the Haslam lakefront approach was more in line of what i was hoping for. public access boardwalk with shops, restaurants, offices and apartments. I walk down to the e9 pier on nice days and i see people aimlessly walking around, wishing there were more things to do there.  It can be designed in a way that accommodates people who want to spend money and people who are there just to enjoy the lakefront.  Moreover, the Haslam team would be motivated by the fact that they need to be able to accommodate large crowds of people hanging out.  This is by virtue of the fact that Jimmytown is in the business of hosting very large events with 100k people.  

 

 

1 hour ago, KJP said:

 

Differing views, values on Downtown Lakefront causing Browns to consider Brook Park
By Ken Prendergast / May 9, 2024

 

As the old saying goes, “Show me your budget — I will tell you what you value.” Along those same lines, if you want to know what Cleveland city officials vs. the owners of the Cleveland Browns want from their returns on investment in the lakefront, show me your actions, not your words.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2024/05/09/differing-views-values-on-downtown-lakefront-causing-browns-to-consider-brook-park/

 

Dave Blomquist just went to town on with this article on WTAM, slamming Bibb hard.

 

One thing I have to call out Bibb on is his pandering.    Except for Bratenhal which is a small fraction of it, the  eastern lake shore has never been a preserve of "rich people", and certainly wasn't in the 2000s when he was growing up.   If he never made it up there it's because he chose not to.

I feel déjà vu coming on:  Dennis Kucinich, late 70's.

I personally much prefer the Haslam vision to what the Bibb administration has put forward with their plan. I also think with the Haslams involved development would be more likely to come to fruition. 

 

If the Bibb administration really wants to bring the lakefront to the people then the focus should be on other areas. There's an entire swath of lakefront from Bratenahl to downtown that needs serious work, so how about focusing on areas like Gordon Park? While Bibb has pleasantly surprised me in some regards his rhetoric on this rubs me the wrong way, coming across like a divisive ideologue. If this is the direction we're going in any potential boondoggle here is on Bibb.   

49 minutes ago, Ethan said:

I enjoyed the article as well. One minor nitpick, though it may be a distinction without a difference, the City's lakefront proposal was crafted based on community feedback. While I can't know for sure, I did go to a few of them, and my impression is that the design they came up with is reflective of the feedback they received. 

 

One reason the riverfront may have been more accepted by the city, is that if I remember correctly Bedrock was quick to seek public feedback, whereas I don't think the same can be said about the Haslams' proposal, which seemed dropped on the city. I can understand how that could have come across as pushing a millionaire-funded, expert-created vision onto the masses. 

 

I also think it's likely the case that if more of Cleveland's lakefront was devoted to parks, people likely would have been more receptive to a development heavy proposal such as the Haslams'. While I'd personally be happy with more parks on the river, I think it's clear that a greater share of riverfront land is publicly accessible than lakefront, and more is being added in the relatively near future. That also probably contributed to the different reactions. 

I'm pretty sure the last "public input" survey I got from the Browns was asking my opinion of RC Cola as the team's soda sponsor and asking if I knew the pizza sponsor of the Browns. 

 

I agree that while the Haslam's often say their actions are based on "what the fans want", I have rarely seen evidence of that outreach ever being done.

 

Whatever focus groups they have must be quite the secret group of pumpkin heads and macho men. 

I actually go with the Mayor on this one. Let Browns World or whatever it is be built in Brook Park and let the Haslam's have joy of it. As someone pointed out upthread, we've been through 40 years; almost half a century, of Lakefront proposals. Heck, the money spent on all of these consultants could have built a land bridge. We could have the lakefront we've all dreamed of and the Browns can have BP to develop. 

23 minutes ago, Rustbelter said:

If the Bibb administration really wants to bring the lakefront to the people then the focus should be on other areas. 

That’s the exact reason they are focusing on this area. It has a deadline and money and therefore a real chance of happening now. 
 

It seems clear to me that the City is trying to emulate the wildly popular Brooklyn Bridge Park

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-02-22/brooklyn-bridge-park-and-the-power-of-public-space-on-the-waterfront

2 hours ago, Enginerd said:

That’s the exact reason they are focusing on this area. It has a deadline and money and therefore a real chance of happening now. 
 

It seems clear to me that the City is trying to emulate the wildly popular Brooklyn Bridge Park

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-02-22/brooklyn-bridge-park-and-the-power-of-public-space-on-the-waterfront

 

Is pretty different IMO. The Brooklyn waterfront is next to some of the densest and most upscale urban neighborhoods in the country and has easy access for yuppies who can walk/bike there from their neighborhoods....to go along with the many tourists getting their Instagram shots. 

 

What Bibb is proposing will certainly be an improvement from what's there now, but will also be a park without a neighborhood to activate the space when tourists are not around (and Cleveland is no Brooklyn in that regard). I mean if we're playing SimCity and I can give downtown Cleveland a 100,000+ population then sure, Bibb's plan would be ideal. But that's not the reality here.

 

Fun fact - the carousel at the Brooklyn Bridge spent it's former life in Youngstown. 

 

 

Edited May 10, 20241 yr by Rustbelter
typos

So I took a look on Google Earth to check out the "Jerry's World" around AT&T Stadium, and am not quite sure what it is comprised of.  Is it the Walmart that is across the street, or the Motel 6 across the other street?

 

And would anybody care to do a comparison of the demographics within a 1/2 hour drive of Jerry's World and Jimmy's World?

1 hour ago, Rustbelter said:

I personally much prefer the Haslam vision to what the Bibb administration has put forward with their plan. I also think with the Haslams involved development would be more likely to come to fruition. 

 

If the Bibb administration really wants to bring the lakefront to the people then the focus should be on other areas. There's an entire swath of lakefront from Bratenahl to downtown that needs serious work, so how about focusing on areas like Gordon Park? While Bibb has pleasantly surprised me in some regards his rhetoric on this rubs me the wrong way, coming across like a divisive ideologue. If this is the direction we're going in any potential boondoggle here is on Bibb.   

I have no confidence that the Haslams put that lake front “development plan” together with any intention of executing it. That was 100% a ploy to get the public on board with gifting them a billion dollars. 

2 hours ago, Ethan said:

I enjoyed the article as well. One minor nitpick, though it may be a distinction without a difference, the City's lakefront proposal was crafted based on community feedback. While I can't know for sure, I did go to a few of them, and my impression is that the design they came up with is reflective of the feedback they received. 

Right, the city did a thorough job collecting feedback. And Bedrock has appeared more collaborative (although I’m not sure how much they really listen to but they have gone through the motions). Clearly the Haslam approach has been off putting to the mayor. And the fact they funded his opponents surely doesn’t help!
 

Despite that, I still don’t get the solution the city is offering. It has always seemed like a hodgepodge of park amenities and a couple random buildings. The flaw to me is they took public feedback and didn’t provide any editorial control. The way I have seen spaces like this work in other cities is a mix of housing, shops, hotels, restaurants and public spaces. Like the Inner Harbor in Baltimore. Those are places where lots of different kinds of people can mingle and enjoy. My fear is nothing at all happens in this area. Or it becomes a remote, underutilized, poorly maintained park. 

This is all disappointing to me.
 

Speaking on behalf of the Lakefront, compromise seems the best way forward. Does anyone have any faith in that happening? 
 

I wish we could just take the architecture and private investment aspects in Haslam’s Lakefront Plan and add the very important natural aspects of the City plan while ensuring public access. That simple agreement to terms would keep the ball rolling and then some. 
 

Also I don’t know how Mayor Bibb has somehow missed knowing that people of all walks of life have been visiting our lakefront parks the last 50 years. I honestly don’t know what he’s really angling for. 

Edited May 9, 20241 yr by surfohio

Geez I am truly disappointed.  All this time i thought that Jimmy turned his back on Cleveland. I liked jimmy's Vision. We have an opportunity to turn our

lakefront into a world class lakefront. I did nor realize that it is Bibb that is putting the kabosh on everything. Our Social Equity lakefront will be run by

homeless, gangsters and drug addicts. We already get a bad rap nationally & locally that downtown is unsafe. This Social Equity lakefront will just fuel some

more bad reputation. Way to go mayor. Now we know where you stand.

35 minutes ago, simplythis said:

Our Social Equity lakefront will be run by

homeless, gangsters and drug addicts. 

My guess would be the Division of Recreation 

1 hour ago, surfohio said:

This is all disappointing to me.
 

Speaking on behalf of the Lakefront, compromise seems the best way forward. Does anyone have any faith in that happening? 
 

I wish we could just take the architecture and private investment aspects in Haslam’s Lakefront Plan and add the very important natural aspects of the City plan while ensuring public access. That simple agreement to terms would keep the ball rolling and then some. 
 

Also I don’t know how Mayor Bibb has somehow missed knowing that people of all walks of life have been visiting our lakefront parks the last 50 years. I honestly don’t know what he’s really angling for. 

It sounds like Mayor Bibb was asking for money for his lakefront park too.  It might be less expensive to build than the Haslams' vision, but it won't be free to build (or maintain). 

 

Maybe there is a compromise on the horizon.  If the state decides not to give either any money (not unlikely), then we're looking at a renovated stadium and negotiations over building some version of Jimmy's World and using that to finance the stadium redo, along with Bibb pushing for an improved waterfront access over what Haslam had proposed.  Going back and looking at Haslam's plan again, there is more public space toward the lake than I remembered.  And Bibb's proposal also includes some new buildings around the stadium, just not as many as Haslam proposed.  I can see a path to compromise -- the "win-win" might not be the home run either wants, but still success for the city and the Browns. 

Edited May 10, 20241 yr by Foraker

My brain is scrambled from all this stadium talk. Can @KJP or anyone refresh my memory as to why the city refused the Haslam's the land they wanted on the east side of downtown? Going off this picture Ken used in his recent article of the Vikings stadium, it looks basically identical to where the Browns stadium would go if you're looking west. That area is a parking lot dead zone. Plus you keep the Browns downtown, revitalize that area and can still develop the lakefront.

 

 

That’s not what Mayor Justin Bibb’s administration wants from the downtown lakefront. Their values are based on a different set of experiences and backgrounds. He and his chiefs want it accessible to all Clevelanders. They want the lakefront to be a place that people of all incomes, races and backgrounds can enjoy equally.

 

I know I'm being facetious somewhat here but is there an invisible wall planned above the expressway which would prevent people with lower income from accessing the area? If their stance is to die on a hill over this sort of social justice then that's frankly ridiculous. Brook Park on the whiter, more affluent, car centric west side sounds far more inaccessible to me to poor people from minority backgrounds. Cutting your nose off to spite your face.

And my brain is scrambled as well.  I can't believe the only two options are renovating the current stadium or building a dome in Brook Park.

20 minutes ago, GREGinPARMA said:

My brain is scrambled from all this stadium talk. Can @KJP or anyone refresh my memory as to why the city refused the Haslam's the land they wanted on the east side of downtown? Going off this picture Ken used in his recent article of the Vikings stadium, it looks basically identical to where the Browns stadium would go if you're looking west. That area is a parking lot dead zone. Plus you keep the Browns downtown, revitalize that area and can still develop the lakefront.

 

 

Per inside sources that I have at the FBI, there is beurocratic tape that is holding up moving the current FBI offices on the east side of downtown. There's a huge backlog of buildings that they have to do, and while Cleveland is on the list, it's still a couple of years away.

20 minutes ago, Foraker said:

Maybe there is a compromise on the horizon.  If the state decides not to give either any money (not unlikely), then we're looking at a renovated stadium and negotiations over building some version of Jimmy's World and using that to finance the stadium redo, along with Bibb pushing for an improved waterfront access over what Haslam had proposed.  Going back and looking at Haslam's plan again, there is more public space toward the lake than I remembered.  And Bibb's proposal also includes some new buildings around the stadium, just not as many as Haslam proposed.  I can see a path to compromise -- the "win-win" might not be the home run either wants, but still success for the city and the Browns. 

 

I hope this is the case given the circumstances that we're working with. Seems like a reasonable solution that will keep everyone mostly satisfied.

 

I would need to go back and review more, but the Haslam concept certainly did provide public access. It's not like it created some sort of exclusionary barriers. Scaling up the public realm portions of the Haslam plan up a bit and moving this thing along makes sense to me but I'm sure it's not that simple.

 

 

53 minutes ago, GREGinPARMA said:

My brain is scrambled from all this stadium talk. Can @KJP or anyone refresh my memory as to why the city refused the Haslam's the land they wanted on the east side of downtown? Going off this picture Ken used in his recent article of the Vikings stadium, it looks basically identical to where the Browns stadium would go if you're looking west. That area is a parking lot dead zone. Plus you keep the Browns downtown, revitalize that area and can still develop the lakefront.

 

 

 

What stadium sized piece of land does the City own on the east side of downtown that it could have given over to Haslam?

1 hour ago, GREGinPARMA said:

My brain is scrambled from all this stadium talk. Can @KJP or anyone refresh my memory as to why the city refused the Haslam's the land they wanted on the east side of downtown? Going off this picture Ken used in his recent article of the Vikings stadium, it looks basically identical to where the Browns stadium would go if you're looking west. That area is a parking lot dead zone. Plus you keep the Browns downtown, revitalize that area and can still develop the lakefront.

 

 

 

I had reported in 2022 that the Haslams wanted to put a domed stadium on the northeast side of downtown. The Haslams even reached out to some property owners (including WKYC) but apparently ran into some disinterest from at least one property owner (I don't know who). The Haslams asked the city to intercede with the thought that it could lead to eminent domain if things didn't progress. With the Port's eminent domain fight with the Georges underway at that time, the city didn't want a repeat of that. I don't think they were concerned about losing. They were apparently concerned about delays given how many properties had to be acquired. So the city urged the Browns to look elsewhere. 

One option that really could be the best for all is if Burke Lakefront Airport was decommissioned and that land was either converted to the publicly accessible lakefront that Mayor Bibb envisions or move the Browns Stadium to this location and The Haslams could build their vision. The two sites could be swapped for either plan. Personally I preferred The Haslam lakefront plan over the vision that Bibb has proposed.  A better use of prime real estate rather than more park settings that would bring more tax revenue to a cash strapped city.

1 hour ago, dave2017 said:

One option that really could be the best for all is if Burke Lakefront Airport was decommissioned and that land was either converted to the publicly accessible lakefront that Mayor Bibb envisions or move the Browns Stadium to this location and The Haslams could build their vision. The two sites could be swapped for either plan. Personally I preferred The Haslam lakefront plan over the vision that Bibb has proposed.  A better use of prime real estate rather than more park settings that would bring more tax revenue to a cash strapped city.

With the FAA involved there is no way this happens in a timeline suitable for Haslam. 

 

And do you really want a sea of parking lots right on the lakefront? 

5 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

With the FAA involved there is no way this happens in a timeline suitable for Haslam. 

 

And do you really want a sea of parking lots right on the lakefront? 

Their wouldn't need to be any change in parking. The muni lots would remain as is for either location near the existing or new stadium on Burke land.

Do we even know how realistic the Haslam proposal was? We know this land is back fill so I would assume that's going to either limit the size of any new construction or increase the cost to get supports down to bed rock. And that's even assuming he would be able to build what he wants since the reclaimed land is state owned. 

 

Emotions may be running high over which proposal is better when realistically a park with some public access buildings is one of but a few options. 

Here are the two plans next to each other. I need to adjust my responses earlier because when you look at them like this they aren’t really that super different. 
 

The Haslam plan (is it a plan or just a an illustration of a vision?) definitely includes more buildings but to your point @Luke_S, I don’t know if there is any evidence there would be demand for all those buildings right away. I have no idea what is physically possible. 

 

 

Edited May 10, 20241 yr by coneflower

39 minutes ago, coneflower said:

Here are the two plans next to each other. I need to adjust my responses earlier because when you look at them like this they aren’t really that super different. 
 

The Haslam plan (is it a plan or just a an illustration of a vision?) definitely includes more buildings but to your point @Luke_S, I don’t know if there is any evidence there would be demand for all those buildings right away. I have no idea what is physically possible. 

It's wild how similar these are and yet these two can't find a compromise. Swallow your pride gentlemen. Not every engagement requires a winner and loser.

 

The city clearly wants the Browns to remain in Cleveland and it's increasingly looking like Haslam isn't going to get his desired funds from the state. Stop wasting everyone's time and start getting to work on a compromised lakefront development.

Edited May 10, 20241 yr by MostlyThere14

I looked even more carefully and found "Jerry's Village".  It's two buildings- a hotel, and a what appears to be basically an outlot-style building with a restaurant or two.  There's significantly more development planned even in the City's vision for the Lakefront than there is in "Jerry's Village".  And it's closer to the baseball stadium, an arena, and a convention center than it is to the football stadium.

 

Haslam's plan for a "Jimmy's Village" is pure nonsense.

When you ask for 1.25 billion, then settle on a comprmise of 600 million, the latter seems reasonable. I wonder if Brookpark is just a facade? Bibb seems pretty confident. Politics!

Edited May 10, 20241 yr by dski44