The city is currently updating the plan if the Browns leave as well. I do not see this stadium gaining big events either and Brook Park good luck with all your giveaways.

^^ And shoreway reconfiguration and land bridge would get put on back burner.

 

Edited June 5, 20241 yr by LibertyBlvd

3 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

^^ And shoreway reconfiguration and land bridge would get put on back burner.

 

 

I don't buy into this line of thinking

8 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

 

I don't buy into this line of thinking

I certainly do.  If you take a multi-billion dollar NFL organization out of the equation, the politicians with the purse strings will suddenly lose interest.   There is no capital for righting the wrongs of Cleveland's lakefront of the last 100 years. 

7 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

I certainly do.  If you take a multi-billion dollar NFL organization out of the equation, the politicians with the purse strings will suddenly lose interest.   There is no capital for righting the wrongs of Cleveland's lakefront of the last 100 years. 

 

Bibb has put a lot of his political capital behind this so he has a big personal incentive to push this across the finish line. I could be wrong, I'm not familiar with the details of the other ~20 lakefront plans, but this also seems to be one of the more comprehensive approaches to reimagining the lakefront; not just the land bridge and North Coast Harbor area or Burke Lakefront Airport but shoreway conversion as well. This plan also has backing of a lot more interested parties than just the city government or Browns as well. 

Whatever they potentially build on the lakefront, it should be usable all year round. Think east bank of the flats, but on a much larger and grander scale. They must think hard as to what they decide to build there as it may be the city’s most prime piece of land. 

31 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

Bibb has put a lot of his political capital behind this so he has a big personal incentive to push this across the finish line. I could be wrong, I'm not familiar with the details of the other ~20 lakefront plans, but this also seems to be one of the more comprehensive approaches to reimagining the lakefront; not just the land bridge and North Coast Harbor area or Burke Lakefront Airport but shoreway conversion as well. This plan also has backing of a lot more interested parties than just the city government or Browns as well. 

The plans are missing any discussion or exploration of timeline or funding. The whole reason we’re even talking about this is that the Browns came to the table with their own plan years ago, which included a billionaire with deep pockets and connections to statewide Republicans. I don’t see how they proceed without that? It seems pie in the sky and I have seen no evidence that it’s doable without Haslam or state Republican helping. 

Edited June 5, 20241 yr by coneflower

5 minutes ago, coneflower said:

The plans are missing any discussion or exploration of timeline or funding. The whole reason we’re even talking about this is that the Browns came to the table with their own plan years ago, which included a billionaire with deep pockets and connections to statewide Republicans. I don’t see how they proceed without that? It seems pie in the sky and I have seen no evidence that it’s doable without Haslam or state Republican helping. 

 

And shortly after the Browns came forward with their plan the City initiated feasibility studies on the land bridge/lakefront development, Burke removal, and shoreway conversion and they've already had the community input meetings on the lakefront development plans. That's how this process works and its fairly far along and continuing with or without the Browns. 

3 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

And shortly after the Browns came forward with their plan the City initiated feasibility studies on the land bridge/lakefront development, Burke removal, and shoreway conversion and they've already had the community input meetings on the lakefront development plans. That's how this process works and it’s fairly far along and continuing with or without the Browns. 

Right. But how is any of that achievable without any realistic funding sources? My point is the big money that was designated for this potential project looks like it’s going somewhere else.  
 

 

I'd rather have the public money come from the state instead of the city/county, since they are drawing from a much larger fund, but the central objection still remains. I'm not sure it's the best use of taxpayer dollars. If the state wants to give 200+ million for a project in Cleveland I'd rather have it go to the landbridge. 

 

I'm unfortunately inclined to agree with the debbie downers above that this whole lakefront project becomes much less likely to happen if the Browns leave, but entirely for political reasons. If the money the State is apparently willing to offer the Haslams is instead directed to the landbridge and adjacent development, most of the funding gap would disappear overnight. I can't think of a compelling argument how that wouldn't be a more responsible use of taxpayer dollars. 

Shoreway reconfiguration and land bridge will cost hundreds of millions. IMO I doubt they proceed with that until something gets built on the lakefront. 

18 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

Shoreway reconfiguration and land bridge will cost hundreds of millions. IMO I doubt they proceed with that until something gets built on the lakefront. 

 

The alternative viewpoint is that you can't capitalize on the lakefront until the Shoreway is reconfigured and the land bridge is built. Infrastructure (the foundation) usually has to come before development (the abode).

1 hour ago, coneflower said:

 I don’t see how they proceed without that? It seems pie in the sky and I have seen no evidence that it’s doable without Haslam or state Republican helping. 

Bibb has already proposed a downtown-area "Shore-to-Core" TIF, already approved by city council.  So there is at least some of a funding plan in place, even if the Browns move.

https://www.clevelandohio.gov/news/shore-core-shore-tif-district-seeks-transform-waterfronts-strengthen-city-core-and-cleveland

24 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

The alternative viewpoint is that you can't capitalize on the lakefront until the Shoreway is reconfigured and the land bridge is built. Infrastructure (the foundation) usually has to come before development (the abode).

So maybe they just do a simple, less costly pedestrian bridge initially?

2 hours ago, jbee1982 said:

Whatever they potentially build on the lakefront, it should be usable all year round. Think east bank of the flats, but on a much larger and grander scale. They must think hard as to what they decide to build there as it may be the city’s most prime piece of land. 

 

Keep in mind that it gets very cold and windy on the lakefront east of downtown during the winter months.  Much moreso than the west.

Was it it ever clear to any one here how much, if any, of the development around the existing stadium the Haslams were committed to actually building? I was under the impression that pretty little render they released was to show what could be done if the land bridge was built.

I believe the answer is nothing. The Haslems have only committed to their being noncommittal as to location, financing, and surrounding fantasy developments. 

2 hours ago, Luke_S said:

 

And shortly after the Browns came forward with their plan the City initiated feasibility studies on the land bridge/lakefront development, Burke removal, and shoreway conversion and they've already had the community input meetings on the lakefront development plans. That's how this process works and its fairly far along and continuing with or without the Browns. 

 

It's not your fault by any means, but this process has been going on for 30+ years. 

 

If people here want to be optimistic that's great. But what I am seeing is the City and County leadership appears to be getting blindsided in all this.  

1 hour ago, KJP said:

 

The alternative viewpoint is that you can't capitalize on the lakefront until the Shoreway is reconfigured and the land bridge is built. Infrastructure (the foundation) usually has to come before development (the abode).

 

So...chicken or egg? Which comes first?

3 hours ago, LibertyBlvd said:

Shoreway reconfiguration and land bridge will cost hundreds of millions. IMO I doubt they proceed with that until something gets built on the lakefront. 

I mean if the Browns go to Brook Park that's around $500 Million we wouldn't have to commit to one project, that should cover it. 

10 hours ago, PlanCleveland said:

I could see the Browns Stadium sitting there for 2-3 years, and then getting torn down for some boring renderings that are then canceled for some tiny economic downturn excuse. Next thing we know it's 2035 and all we have is another parking lot in the city. 

My fear as well, and a very plausible scenario. While I'm pretty ambivalent to the stadium staying at the current location, it's probably not a good idea to push away a billionaire with capital to invest on the lakefront. 

22 hours ago, Luke_S said:

Brook Park makes their play.

 

City of Brook Park passes a resolution about Browns stadium project

By Tim Bielik, cleveland.com

Jun. 04, 2024

 

[T]he city of Brook Park has passed a resolution to “strongly” encourage the Browns to leave downtown Cleveland and build a new domed stadium in the spot of the old Ford plant near Interstate 71.

 

...

 

Brook Park said in the resolution that it is ready to work with Haslam Sports Group to not only build a new domed stadium on the site, but also a mixed-use development area around the stadium.

 

The city council also encouraged the Haslams to come to a meeting to discuss proposals and a possible collaboration.

 

https://www.cleveland.com/browns/2024/06/city-of-brook-park-passes-a-resolution-about-browns-stadium-project.html

NEO suburbs are literal parasite to Cleveland, taking the scraps of a dying carcass.

53 minutes ago, Rustbelter said:

it's probably not a good idea to push away a billionaire with capital to invest on the lakefront

 

That's assuming he actually follows through on any of his plans. The absolute worst case (and very possible) scenario is the city continuing to own/maintain the stadium, being $300+M in the hole AND nothing of public value gets built down there after giving haslam all the land. 

59 minutes ago, Rustbelter said:

My fear as well, and a very plausible scenario. While I'm pretty ambivalent to the stadium staying at the current location, it's probably not a good idea to push away a billionaire with capital to invest on the lakefront. 

The city SHOULD push away Haslam. About 500 feet north of the stadium should do it. 

50 minutes ago, GISguy said:

 

That's assuming he actually follows through on any of his plans. The absolute worst case (and very possible) scenario is the city continuing to own/maintain the stadium, being $300+M in the hole AND nothing of public value gets built down there after giving haslam all the land. 

 

I personally would need more convincing that the lakefront development would happen in a reasonable manner otherwise. Cleveland does not exactly have a great track record of executing waterfront plans, and unless I missed something there are no other major players champing at the bit to develop the stadium/lakefront site. I do not particularly have a great view of Haslam but don't think it's fair to say his plan wouldn't be a development catalyst. I would also frankly rather have the stadium removed from the current location for something better (i.e. a Cleveland version of Battery Park City or Boston Seaport), but this isn't SimCity and the way I see the realities of the situation is that the City is heading in the direction of possibly loosing the Browns to the suburbs while the lakefront becomes deadzone for a decade.   

 

11 hours ago, Rustbelter said:

 

I personally would need more convincing that the lakefront development would happen in a reasonable manner otherwise. Cleveland does not exactly have a great track record of executing waterfront plans, and unless I missed something there are no other major players champing at the bit to develop the stadium/lakefront site. I do not particularly have a great view of Haslam but don't think it's fair to say his plan wouldn't be a development catalyst. I would also frankly rather have the stadium removed from the current location for something better (i.e. a Cleveland version of Battery Park City or Boston Seaport), but this isn't SimCity and the way I see the realities of the situation is that the City is heading in the direction of possibly loosing the Browns to the suburbs while the lakefront becomes deadzone for a decade.   

 

 

Which is why i think the city, county and state leadership need to dangle the carrot.   Jimmy if you want public money on the lakefront, then we get a hand in the design, and you're moving all your Browns operations downtown (offices, practice facilities, etc). 

 

If Burke closes, could it be a potential site for a new stadium?   

3 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

If Burke closes, could it be a potential site for a new stadium?   

If it closed tomorrow, yes it could be an option, but wouldn't that be committing the same fundamental error of putting a stadium on the lakefront, just further East? It would either need to be on the southwestern most corner (the most valuable part), or it would be entirely cutoff from downtown, and need to be surrounded by lots of surface parking. Not a great use of lakefront property, but I suppose near dead man's curve could give it good highway access. Regardless, closing Burke would be a decades long process, if it happens at all, which is still far from certain. It isn't an option in the timeline the Haslams are considering. 

11 hours ago, Rustbelter said:

 

I personally would need more convincing that the lakefront development would happen in a reasonable manner otherwise. Cleveland does not exactly have a great track record of executing waterfront plans, and unless I missed something there are no other major players champing at the bit to develop the stadium/lakefront site. I do not particularly have a great view of Haslam but don't think it's fair to say his plan wouldn't be a development catalyst. I would also frankly rather have the stadium removed from the current location for something better (i.e. a Cleveland version of Battery Park City or Boston Seaport), but this isn't SimCity and the way I see the realities of the situation is that the City is heading in the direction of possibly loosing the Browns to the suburbs while the lakefront becomes deadzone for a decade.   

 

 

Ken just posted an article yesterday covering the City's application for a very significant chunk of funding from Federal grants for the land bridge and shoreway conversion. While there may not be other developers we're aware of looking to develop these area it doesn't mean there aren't interested parties; or that after the infrastructure is in place and the lakefront is actually connected and integrated into downtown that interested parties wouldn't come forward with development proposals. 

 

I think we'd be better served by having multiple developers play in this space rather than being subject to the vision and whims of a single developer anyway. 

23 minutes ago, Ethan said:

If it closed tomorrow, yes it could be an option, but wouldn't that be committing the same fundamental error of putting a stadium on the lakefront, just further East? It would either need to be on the southwestern most corner (the most valuable part), or it would be entirely cutoff from downtown, and need to be surrounded by lots of surface parking. Not a great use of lakefront property, but I suppose near dead man's curve could give it good highway access. Regardless, closing Burke would be a decades long process, if it happens at all, which is still far from certain. It isn't an option in the timeline the Haslams are considering. 

Yes, it would still be on the lakefront, but it would be farther from downtown.  And it would still be in the city of Cleveland.  It's probably a long shot, but I just thought I'd toss it out there.

53 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

If Burke closes, could it be a potential site for a new stadium?   

 

Absolutely 

2 hours ago, Cleburger said:

 

Which is why i think the city, county and state leadership need to dangle the carrot.   Jimmy if you want public money on the lakefront, then we get a hand in the design, and you're moving all your Browns operations downtown (offices, practice facilities, etc). 

 

 

You know what would be interesting? The Browns staying on the lakefront AND moving all of the Berea facilities to Burke. I know, even if all parties were on board the timing doesn't align but still, imagine the Browns facilities anchoring a brand new lakefront neighborhood on the Burke site. 

 

This is the kind of stuff an amatuer urban planner like myself dreams of lol.

^ l fail to see the confusion. Browns re-build the stadium on the current site and also move all of the Berea facilities to the closed Burke airport. Sure l'm just speculating here and it's not going to happen but h*ll, half of the stuff we talk about here is not going to happen.

1 hour ago, LibertyBlvd said:

Yes, it would still be on the lakefront, but it would be farther from downtown.  And it would still be in the city of Cleveland.  It's probably a long shot, but I just thought I'd toss it out there.

 

This would be preferable to Berea and it could especially be attractive with a public component, just like the Cavs facility is creating in coordination with the Cleveland Clinic. Health and wellness is the wave of the future, and a district catered on those principles is a perfect template for a shared Lakefront. Unfortunately it seems Berea is already taking up all of those training facilities. 

Edited June 6, 20241 yr by surfohio

14 minutes ago, cadmen said:

^ l fail to see the confusion. Browns re-build the stadium on the current site and also move all of the Berea facilities to the closed Burke airport. Sure l'm just speculating here and it's not going to happen but h*ll, half of the stuff we talk about here is not going to happen.

 

Because I don't see how a Browns training facility contributes to a vibrant lakefront neighborhood. 

1 minute ago, Luke_S said:

 

Because I don't see how a Browns training facility contributes to a vibrant lakefront neighborhood. 

 

I see a Browns training facility being more of a contribution than a stadium. Like Clemenza says, "Leave the stadium, take the training facility."

1 minute ago, KJP said:

 

I see a Browns training facility being more of a contribution than a stadium. Like Clemenza says, "Leave the stadium, take the training facility."

 

That's fair, it would be used much more consistently than the stadium. But it will still be acres of open land for private use that could otherwise be utilized, even if for a public park. 

 

Honest question, I don't mean to sound too antagonistic, but has there been any ancillary development in Berea that is the result of the current Browns facility? I could have a false impression, but it seems like right now they're buying up homes, churches, and lots to expand their facilities so kinda going the other direction....

27 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

 

That's fair, it would be used much more consistently than the stadium. But it will still be acres of open land for private use that could otherwise be utilized, even if for a public park. 

 

Health and Wellness my man. It's a no brainer especially when the resources are shared. That's the key, a good mix of private and public amenities. Think: athletic fields, open community space, medical & training care, residential, walking trails, restoration of natural areas...all ingredients for a vibrant new district. 

 

What we really don't need is another Flats East Bank style bar & restaurant district.   

1 hour ago, Luke_S said:

 

That's fair, it would be used much more consistently than the stadium. But it will still be acres of open land for private use that could otherwise be utilized, even if for a public park. 

 

Honest question, I don't mean to sound too antagonistic, but has there been any ancillary development in Berea that is the result of the current Browns facility? I could have a false impression, but it seems like right now they're buying up homes, churches, and lots to expand their facilities so kinda going the other direction....

 

It happens only if someone decides they want to make it happen. Haslam has seen what other NFL are doing and he wants it too. And given his experience with football, soccer and now basketball, he's showing interest in having a big sports training complex much like what Spire has up by Madison. That has created spin-off development. The only time the Browns in Berea get any meaningful visitors is during a few weeks in August for training camp. The rest of the time it's a private facility. That's not enough to create spin-off development. 

1 hour ago, Luke_S said:

 

That's fair, it would be used much more consistently than the stadium. But it will still be acres of open land for private use that could otherwise be utilized, even if for a public park. 

 

I don't think it necessarily needs to be acres of open land.  

The Buffalo Bills practice in an indoor fieldhouse right outside their stadium--and also use the actual stadium if needed.   That to me is a win win as the stadium sits unused most of the year, why not use it for practices as well.   

 

 

1 hour ago, Cleburger said:

I don't think it necessarily needs to be acres of open land.  

The Buffalo Bills practice in an indoor fieldhouse right outside their stadium--and also use the actual stadium if needed.   That to me is a win win as the stadium sits unused most of the year, why not use it for practices as well.   

 

 

They could make a massive facility in partnership with CSU. They have a large indoor field house along Payne in their master plan. Then build the loop line and their athletes can take a train to practice. Go from working with one local college to another. I doubt Jimmy would want a shared main practice facility though. 

 

It is a fun idea to think about. Imagine what events the Greater Cleveland Sports Commission could pull during the summer with soccer, flag football, lacrosse, etc. tournaments along the lake with the skyline in the background. 

Edited June 6, 20241 yr by PlanCleveland

5 hours ago, KJP said:

 

Absolutely 

(Sorry meant to also quote @LibertyBlvd’s post about Burke as a stadium site) 

 

 If a decision was actually made to close Burke  quickly enough (which I’m skeptical of) 

does the city of Cleveland have obstacles to essentially “doing what they want” with that land? 
 

Assuming the answer is “no” -couldnt the city 

work a deal with the Haslams to “make available  the land for the new stadium, parking and the Browns “village” on the Burke  site?  It could provide quite a bit of development if a “Browns Town with accompanying hotels, restaurants and perhaps shopping was added.  
 

Is the timetable simply too short to even consider such a  scenario?  And what other problems would have to be addressed? 
 

 

Edited June 6, 20241 yr by CleveFan

And how about placing a new soccer stadium on Burke land, too.

I think you could put all of the proposed Berea project, plus whatever Browns Town Jimmy wants in BP and still have room for more housing etc. on the Burke site. It's a pretty huge footprint.

https://fox8.com/news/not-looking-at-a-dome-cleveland-officials-say-dome-downtown-not-part-of-stadium-talks/

 

I mean it's nice to hear some acknowledgement of things and not the stone silence as before but I still feel there is a naive attitude from the city almost taking for granted that they could go to Brook Park. Same here in KC where somewhat where there is a lot of work into getting the Chiefs to come over to Kansas whilst Missouri and Jackson County is sort of sticking their head in the sand saying they won't move because they've always played in KCMO.

 

 

5 hours ago, snakebite said:

https://fox8.com/news/not-looking-at-a-dome-cleveland-officials-say-dome-downtown-not-part-of-stadium-talks/

 

I mean it's nice to hear some acknowledgement of things and not the stone silence as before but I still feel there is a naive attitude from the city almost taking for granted that they could go to Brook Park. Same here in KC where somewhat where there is a lot of work into getting the Chiefs to come over to Kansas whilst Missouri and Jackson County is sort of sticking their head in the sand saying they won't move because they've always played in KCMO.

 

 

Tbh, the city of Cleveland's laundry list of things to take care of is long enough as is, with turning around a 70 year population decline and decreasing the poverty rate being top billing. If the Browns don't want to take our offer they can go to Brook Park and have a suburban stadium like a lot of other NFL cities. Let's be real, $1 Billion for renovations is outrageous already with the struggles Cleveland continues to face let alone $2 Billion for a stadium that won't be used much.  

 

Also, if the Browns moved to Brook Park and landed a Super Bowl (which from what I understand is a money pit), over the entire week, people are still going to stay downtown and explore the city because no suburb has the capacity to hold as many visitors as the Super Bowl brings like Cleveland does. The main thing you would "lose" is the 10 days of 60,000 downtown visitors, but that's where losing the Browns can be beneficial. Since you don't have that crutch to rely on to maintain Downtown visiting you are forced to diversify your Downtown offerings to make up for it. You can argue that Cleveland's peak Downtown renaissance period occurred when the Browns weren't here. I would love to maintain a team in Cleveland (I prefer a non-lakefront site) but I'm not breaking the bank for something that is a luxury for the city and not a necessity. 

14 hours ago, jbdad2 said:

And how about placing a new soccer stadium on Burke land, too.

Idk if that is sarcasm or not but no, the Browns being there is a mistake as is. 

6 hours ago, snakebite said:

https://fox8.com/news/not-looking-at-a-dome-cleveland-officials-say-dome-downtown-not-part-of-stadium-talks/

 

I mean it's nice to hear some acknowledgement of things and not the stone silence as before but I still feel there is a naive attitude from the city almost taking for granted that they could go to Brook Park. Same here in KC where somewhat where there is a lot of work into getting the Chiefs to come over to Kansas whilst Missouri and Jackson County is sort of sticking their head in the sand saying they won't move because they've always played in KCMO.

 

 

I think there is a general malaise the Browns will inevitably leave the region due to the financial traps, godawful suggested locations, and general economic realities. The Modell law, even if enforceable, isn't a solution since no billionaire will fund a stadium when Salt Lake City, San Antonio, London, etc would happily do so.

 

Bibb and county leadership frankly have far bigger priorities than to answer a criminal billionaire's extortion, and the fans of today are not that of 30 years ago.

The Browns leaving the region altogether would destroy the careers and “legacies” of every politician who had anything to do with it. I don’t think anyone is dumb enough to accept that as an option, especially Bibb who surely has higher aspirations. 
 

My gripe is we’re here in these forums debating non-stop, making all kinds of assumptions, but the people who were elected to actually do the negotiations have hardly said anything. Thankfully we have local reporters who are piecing it together, but I just think Bibb and Ronanye (who never says anything and it seems has most at stake if they leave Cleveland and want county money) have an obligation to provide more insight into what they are thinking. 
 

 

 

1 hour ago, MyPhoneDead said:

Tbh, the city of Cleveland's laundry list of things to take care of is long enough as is, with turning around a 70 year population decline and decreasing the poverty rate being top billing. If the Browns don't want to take our offer they can go to Brook Park and have a suburban stadium like a lot of other NFL cities. Let's be real, $1 Billion for renovations is outrageous already with the struggles Cleveland continues to face let alone $2 Billion for a stadium that won't be used much.  

 

Also, if the Browns moved to Brook Park and landed a Super Bowl (which from what I understand is a money pit), over the entire week, people are still going to stay downtown and explore the city because no suburb has the capacity to hold as many visitors as the Super Bowl brings like Cleveland does. The main thing you would "lose" is the 10 days of 60,000 downtown visitors, but that's where losing the Browns can be beneficial. Since you don't have that crutch to rely on to maintain Downtown visiting you are forced to diversify your Downtown offerings to make up for it. You can argue that Cleveland's peak Downtown renaissance period occurred when the Browns weren't here. I would love to maintain a team in Cleveland (I prefer a non-lakefront site) but I'm not breaking the bank for something that is a luxury for the city and not a necessity. 

 

Seriously, let them move to BP, save the city from having to spend a ton of money that could go towards better things. If Jimmy wants a palace he can pay for it. It didn't pass when Pittsburgh tried it, but it'd be nice to have a regional stadium authority so that we can pool taxes from all NEO counties instead of sticking the burden on CuyCo residents. Love that folks move out of Cuyahoga because of the high taxes but also expect us to shoulder the burden so they can live it up 10+ weekends out of the year. 

 

"The city is so dangerous!!" - Proceeds to have a great time while trashing the muni lot, going to bars, etc. and not getting killed then drives back to Medina and talks about what a s-hole Cleveland is