feels like a short timeline to respond, so I guess we can officially say burke is off the table. unless they have another package they're working on but are starting with the renovation (likely the cheapest/fastest option)  

Thumbs grudgingly up for this proposal. LOVE the tight timeftame too.

Cleveland's admission tax is currently at 8%. I think the state limited maximum is 10%. 

 

From a signal article earlier this year: "By City Hall’s count, Browns stadium generated more than $67 million in revenue for the city between 2010 and August 2022: $44.8 million in admission taxes collected on ticket proceeds from games and concerts"

 

If they can make an admission tax increase work (which looks considerable to reach that $227 million figure), I think that is an equitable funding mechanism. Let stadium visitors pay for the stadium. 

39 minutes ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

feels like a short timeline to respond, so I guess we can officially say burke is off the table. unless they have another package they're working on but are starting with the renovation (likely the cheapest/fastest option)  

I still think Burke should be closed, but I'm guessing it will take several years for it to happen.  Too long for Haslam to wait.

2 hours ago, GISguy said:

 

I guess my point is that you'd never know that it's been planned (and some already in progress/complete) from Ed G. and the I-Team. Then again I'd never accuse Ed G./Fox 8 of creating a headline to generate clicks, never!

Yeah Ed is pretty bad.   Chasing the post-Trivosanno exurban mouth breathers for sure! 

 

 

 

 

Here's the city press release w/details if anyone's interested: https://www.clevelandohio.gov/news/city-cleveland-proposes-461-million-financing-plan-support-browns-lakefront-stadium

I'm a fan of this proposal. Haslam can benefit from some parking revenue on game days, I don't have issues with the funding sourcing, and I like the tight timeline because I feel even the city realizes that he is dragging his feet. 

Some very messy back of the napkin math:

 

If we include preseason, and assume the 1 / 2 games sell out, there are 674,310 tickets sold is a 10 game season (last season attendance averaged above CBS capacity, but only by about ~380 per game). To generate $227 million over 30 years, that would require an average of ~$11.25  in admission tax revenue per ticket sold. This figure also doesn't include the existing admission tax revenue which would presumably contribute to the $227 million figure. 

 

Inflation is not factored into this figure. The stadium renovations may decrease capacity again, so admission tax per ticket would need to be slightly higher. This figure also assumes that admission tax revenue comes just from Browns Stadium, not other events in the city. This also doesn't include other events at CBS, however the stadium has averaged less then one concert per season - with most drawing less than 50,000. Other ticket events (when they do happen) draw even less.  This offseason with 2 concerts and Summer Slam is a significant outlier that may not be repeated again for years. Again this is not due to the physical stadium, but rather the size of the greater Cleveland / NEO market. 

 

Some may baulk an increase in admission tax, but it is certainly cheaper than the ticket price increase we would see at a new stadium in Brookpark. If you include the cost of PSL's at a new Brookpark stadium, an increase to the admission tax is significantly cheaper for season ticket holders. 

 

Also I don't see the Haslams signing on for a 30 year lease extension for only $461 million. You only really get 30 year extensions out of NFL owners with new stadiums. I would expect a lease extension between 10-15 years for this offer, if the Haslams are even interested in the 461 figure. $227 million in admission tax over 10 years would be ~$33.75. 

 

TL;DR - Only an average of ~$11.25 in additional admission tax per ticket to generate $227 million over 30 years (~$33.75 over 10)

2 minutes ago, NorthShore647 said:

Some very messy back of the napkin math:

 

If we include preseason, and assume the 1 / 2 games sell out, there are 674,310 tickets sold is a 10 game season (last season attendance averaged above CBS capacity, but only by about ~380 per game). To generate $227 million over 30 years, that would require an average of ~$11.25  in admission tax revenue per ticket sold. This figure also doesn't include the existing admission tax revenue which would presumably contribute to the $227 million figure. 

 

Inflation is not factored into this figure. The stadium renovations may decrease capacity again, so admission tax per ticket would need to be slightly higher. This figure also assumes that admission tax revenue comes just from Browns Stadium, not other events in the city. This also doesn't include other events at CBS, however the stadium has averaged less then one concert per season - with most drawing less than 50,000. Other ticket events (when they do happen) draw even less.  This offseason with 2 concerts and Summer Slam is a significant outlier that may not be repeated again for years. Again this is not due to the physical stadium, but rather the size of the greater Cleveland / NEO market. 

 

Some may baulk an increase in admission tax, but it is certainly cheaper than the ticket price increase we would see at a new stadium in Brookpark. If you include the cost of PSL's at a new Brookpark stadium, an increase to the admission tax is significantly cheaper for season ticket holders. 

 

Also I don't see the Haslams signing on for a 30 year lease extension for only $461 million. You only really get 30 year extensions out of NFL owners with new stadiums. I would expect a lease extension between 10-15 years for this offer, if the Haslams are even interested in the 461 figure. $227 million in admission tax over 10 years would be ~$33.75. 

 

TL;DR - Only an average of ~$11.25 in additional admission tax per ticket to generate $227 million over 30 years (~$33.75 over 10)

 

Here's the admission tax figures from their document: 

 

Great math but we all know the city/county get screwed on direct financials.

 

It's all that other, vague, hyperexaggerated, abstract ROI that matter. I guess. And we gotta appease the drunk idiots.

 

A win for Bibb regardless of what happens next.

34 minutes ago, NorthShore647 said:

Also I don't see the Haslams signing on for a 30 year lease extension for only $461 million. You only really get 30 year extensions out of NFL owners with new stadiums. I would expect a lease extension between 10-15 years for this offer, if the Haslams are even interested in the 461 figure. $227 million in admission tax over 10 years would be ~$33.75. 

 

The $461M is only Cleveland's portion of the public funding. Jimmy's original ask was for $500-$600M in public funding to remain on the lakefront; the city's offer is most of the way there, I would expect the county and state to be able to easily provide the remaining funding. 

I like the City's proposal. Mostly I like that they're being proactive. But as others have mentioned it seems very just that most of the funds are coming from increasing taxes on the tickets.

 

Ironically, if the Browns funded this privately it would look very similar, since the ticket prices would have to go up either way. Increasing ticket prices via taxation seems like a weird work around, but at least the lions share of the tax burden is coming from the fans themselves.

 

Hopefully the Browns respond quickly, get this mess wrapped up. Browns stay in Cleveland with a relatively small impact on the taxpayers. 

 

2 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

 

The $461M is only Cleveland's portion of the public funding. Jimmy's original ask was for $500-$600M in public funding to remain on the lakefront; the city's offer is most of the way there, I would expect the county and state to be able to easily provide the remaining funding. 

They probably could, but I don't think the Browns actually need that much money. $450 million in preferential treatment seems sufficient to me. 

14 minutes ago, Ethan said:

19 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

 

The $461M is only Cleveland's portion of the public funding. Jimmy's original ask was for $500-$600M in public funding to remain on the lakefront; the city's offer is most of the way there, I would expect the county and state to be able to easily provide the remaining funding. 

They probably could, but I don't think the Browns actually need that much money. $450 million in preferential treatment seems sufficient to me. 

 

We got $36 million from the state for the browns stadium in 1997 ($71 adjusted for inflation), Cincy got $50 million for PBS in the 1998. Progressive got $30 million for its renovation in 2022. I think the Haslam's could get something a little over ~$30 million for this renovation from the state. 

This seems like a good deal from the city 367 (admissions tax ) 94 Parking plus Whatever the state & county offer.

Hopefully this can come close to the 600m Haslam wants.

 

The question that i have is assuming the state & county contribute the same amount and assuming the admissions tax

generated by the browns games is the same in brook park - Then how much more can Brook Park offer Cleveland?

 

Can they offer enough to come up to 1.2m ?

Browns reply:

https://fox8.com/news/i-team-exclusive-what-cleveland-offered-browns-to-stay-in-stadium/

Crain's article. https://www.crainscleveland.com/politics-policy/mayor-bibb-lays-out-461-million-plan-browns-stadium-deadline-haslams

 

Mayor Bibb’s offer to Browns may be last-ditch effort
By Ken Prendergast / August 1, 2024

 

Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb sent a letter today to Jimmy and Dee Haslam, owners of the Cleveland Browns, urging them to stay in Downtown Cleveland. Bibb also publicized the city’s $461 million contribution to renovate Cleveland Browns Stadium to show to the public that the city has made a strong financial offer to the National Football League team. But that might not be enough to keep the Browns at the deteriorating lakefront stadium.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2024/08/01/mayor-bibbs-offer-to-browns-may-be-last-ditch-effort/

The city's offer is fair and reasonable. If the Browns want Brook Park, fine, but good luck with the public/infrastructural funding with the county and city.

Wait, so is there no chance for a dome on the Burke land? Or is the city keeping that in its proverbial back pocket as an alternate solution?

 

3 minutes ago, Paul in Cleveland said:

Wait, so is there no chance for a dome on the Burke land? Or is the city keeping that in its proverbial back pocket as an alternate solution?

A public offer with ten days to respond sounds like a soft ultimatum. I doubt there is anything in their back pocket, so to speak, that hasn't been discussed behind closed doors. 

3 hours ago, NorthShore647 said:

I would expect a lease extension between 10-15 years for this offer

Zero percent chance the city/state agrees to put up half a billion dollars for just 10-15 years, that would be silly for both the browns and Cleveland. I would think 20 years is minimum.

Possible change in Lakefront planning. According to a Ch 19 story Bibb is willing to release the 20 acres norh of of the stadium and 

possibly allow haslam to partner in and develop it. https://www.cleveland19.com/2024/08/01/city-releases-461m-pitch-haslams-try-keep-stadium-downtown-request-response-by-aug-12/

9 minutes ago, 646empire said:

Zero percent chance the city/state agrees to put up half a billion dollars for just 10-15 years, that would be silly for both the browns and Cleveland. I would think 20 years is minimum.

 

Baltimore got a 15 year lease extension after $600 million from the state for renovations. 

 

Charlotte got a 20 year lease extension (with a 15 year opt out) after $650 million from the city for renovations. 

 

Jacksonville got a 30 year lease extension after $750 million from the city for renovations. 

 

I don't think state assistance would be greater than ~$50 million. That puts us at just over $500 million (with maybe something from county?) I would be surprised if that got us to 20 years. Maybe 15 with a conditional 5 year extension. 

Props to Bibb. It looks like a fair deal for his residents.

 

I don't understand any of the quotes I'm reading from Ronayne, though. He seems wishy-washy.

1 hour ago, WindyBuckeye said:

The city's offer is fair and reasonable. If the Browns want Brook Park, fine, but good luck with the public/infrastructural funding with the county and city.

Agreed. I would also love for Bibb to have everything ready to go, the day after the end of the 2028 season to pull the stadium down. I can’t see a BP stadium being ready even if they start this year - which is not going to happen. 

I like this. It's an extremely hard ask balancing not losing the team as well as protecting the public. Selfishly I am also just at total burn out with the stadium carousel, although that's probably compounded being in KC just now where it's ten times worse.

 

They clearly prefer Brook Park but I just don't know how they find the cash for it all. The County Exec also advised he would prefer the team remains Downtown so I just don't see that being a huge funding source for BP. The State would offer some assistance but I just would be stunned if they gave what is needed for that particular site.

If the Browns move to BP what happens to the city money? The name says " Cleveland" but if the stadium is in BP how does Bibb sell giving city money for a stadium in BP? It will still be very difficilt for NEO to finance a dome with or without Cleveland money. It will require an awful lot of compromising. 

 

BP or at least the Haslams seem to have all the momentum but l still don't see how the dollars add up.

14 minutes ago, cadmen said:

If the Browns move to BP what happens to the city money? The name says " Cleveland" but if the stadium is in BP how does Bibb sell giving city money for a stadium in BP? It will still be very difficilt for NEO to finance a dome with or without Cleveland money. It will require an awful lot of compromising. 

 

BP or at least the Haslams seem to have all the momentum but l still don't see how the dollars add up.

There obviously would be no city of Cleveland money and quite frankly I don't see much in the way of county money even though Brookpark is in CC.  That leaves the state of Ohio in terms of public subsidies.  I mean how much can BP really offer, especially if it doesn't want its blue collar population marching on city hall.  

 

Ken keeps saying that the stadium is going to be financed from TIFs and other devices relating to all the shiny stuff that is going to go around it.  I know I sound like a broken record but the only thing that is going to be surrounding that stadium is a sea of asphalt and maybe a 150 room Days Inn.  I really would like to know who is doing the math for Haslam.  Who ever he is he better tell the boss to get ready to pony up more than a billion dollars of his own money.  I know he has it but these NFL types don't like spending it when they have the public sector to sucker.

I’m still convinced Haslem has zero intention of moving to Brookpark. I love that Justin did this. 

No idea what to think. The City's proposal seems solid but I think announcing it to the public comes across as amateurish and desperate. But I also can't see some sort of urban village being successful in Brook Park...I mean it's not exactly an area people are lining up to move to or spend time in.

 

2 hours ago, simplythis said:

Possible change in Lakefront planning. According to a Ch 19 story Bibb is willing to release the 20 acres norh of of the stadium and 

possibly allow haslam to partner in and develop it. https://www.cleveland19.com/2024/08/01/city-releases-461m-pitch-haslams-try-keep-stadium-downtown-request-response-by-aug-12/

I'm all for this. Would fix much of what I didn't like about Bibb's vision. It also just makes the most sense for all parties. If this was all just a 4D chess negotiating tactic then kudos to Bibb.

Edited August 1, 2024Aug 1 by Rustbelter

2 hours ago, simplythis said:

Possible change in Lakefront planning. According to a Ch 19 story Bibb is willing to release the 20 acres norh of of the stadium and 

possibly allow haslam to partner in and develop it. https://www.cleveland19.com/2024/08/01/city-releases-461m-pitch-haslams-try-keep-stadium-downtown-request-response-by-aug-12/

I thought that was the plan three or four years ago when d**k paces involvement was dropped, and Haslam stepped up to the plate. Why is this something new?

9 minutes ago, Htsguy said:

I thought that was the plan three or four years ago when d**k paces involvement was dropped, and Haslam stepped up to the plate. Why is this something new?

Because Bibb nixed Haslam's plan making the lakefront exclusive for the rich suburbanites. Bibb's lakefront plan is to make it available to city of cleveland residents by making all of theses gathering places AND not developing it for higher income people.

Bibb's lakefront vision removed the buildings north of the stadium that Haslam's vision had proposed but these would likely be mostly residential. Saying it was just for "rich suburbanites" is ridiculous. In the Bibb concept this would mostly be parkland instead (i.e. for "the people"). There were some other concepts in the years prior to Haslam's or Bibb's involvement that also had housing there.

 

Haslam Plan

 

Bibb Plan

 

 

Edited August 1, 2024Aug 1 by Rustbelter

1 hour ago, Rustbelter said:

No idea what to think. The City's proposal seems solid but I think announcing it to the public comes across as amateurish and desperate. 

 

I disagree. I think it was smart and good politics at the same time. If there is a decision coming soon he got out in front of it. If the move is to BP he has put something on the table so he can say he offered. Limits any political fallout. No "Bibb lost the Browns." And maybe it is a real proposal. If Haslam can't find those few billions he might be forced to accept Bibb's offer. 

 

I still have a hard time believing that kind of money is there.

City Officials react to stadium proposal. https://fox8.com/news/i-team/more-cleveland-officials-react-to-keep-browns-stadium-on-lakefront/

The math does not at all add up for Haslem as I don't see how he can pull funding together for the BP location.  Bibb is wisely calling his bluff with a very smart and fair offer.  

Quote

 

 

Edited August 2, 2024Aug 2 by newyorker

12 hours ago, cadmen said:

 

I disagree. I think it was smart and good politics at the same time. If there is a decision coming soon he got out in front of it. If the move is to BP he has put something on the table so he can say he offered. Limits any political fallout. No "Bibb lost the Browns." And maybe it is a real proposal. If Haslam can't find those few billions he might be forced to accept Bibb's offer. 

 

I still have a hard time believing that kind of money is there.

One additional reason. By imposing a public deadline on the response he's helping to get to a decision sooner. Regardless of which way the decision goes, indecision and delay only makes things worse for the City. Now the Browns have to make a definitive public statement in the next ten days, yes, no, a serious counteroffer, or risk a lot of bad press. In any case, the city will be better off, either due to clarity, a stronger negotiating position, or both. It's very much win-win for the city. 

 

Not to mention that if the Browns say no without a counteroffer they will be obligated to say why. That's a PR nightmare, and if they get through that unscathed someone will deserve a raise. 

 

There's also the emergency repairs due, council apparently doesn't want to pay for those without a commitment from the Browns. I don't blame them, if the stadium is getting demolished in a few years any repairs should be limited to safety concerns over that period. Any repairs that can be ignored should be if the stadium will be torn down in just a few years. That could be millions of dollars in foregone repairs, not insignificant. 

 

With any luck we'll know where the Browns will be playing in a little over a week. The objective of Bibb's Gambit here seems to have been to cut the Haslam's 'will they, won't they' crap. He might just succeed too. Hopefully it at least gets the Browns to put their cards on the table. 

The decision has already been made.

9 minutes ago, KJP said:

The decision has already been made.

Care to elaborate ? 

27 minutes ago, KJP said:

The decision has already been made.

I believe somebody above suggested this.  The fact that Bibb made the city's offer public now and with such a short (indeed unrealistic if he didn't already know it was going to be turned down) period for a response is probably pretty good evidence of this.

  I hate to comment in this thread because I feel it is so polarizing, but I don't think this offer will be enough.  I feel the Browns organization have wanted a dome the whole time.  I'm not sure how Brookpark will accommodate this desire monetarily, but we shall see.  The idea of the football village is a good idea, but in my opinion the location is just terrible.  I was a Cleveland resident for 30 years, but now I am back to where I grew up (Medina).  I can speak from both sides of the fence as to location.  I think the dome would serve DT much better than Brookpark.  Beyond football, whatever would be going on in the dome, there is much more to do DT than in BP.  As far as safety, suburban folks seem to think there are hordes of criminals just waiting for them when they enter the city.  Yes, there is a crime element, but don't think that these same criminals won't make their way to BP on game day (or whatever may be going on).  

  I have a feeling other than game day, this project will turn into a dead zone.  What will the draw be?  Shopping? Bars? restaurants?  What ancillaries does BP offer?  It will be busy for a bit I am sure, but once the shininess wears off will it be a destination?  I haven't even scratched on the traffic situation and the logistics that are going to have to be planned out to relieve the highway back up on game days.  What about RTA trains?  Will they extend beyond the airport to the "village"?  

  I'm not sure what it would have taken to sell the DT land to the Haslam's or if it even could have been done, but once they purchased in BP I feel it was a done deal.  I think this last minute proposal was to make the city look as if they weren't going down without a fight, but I feel the fight was over before it started.  I hope I will eat crow on this one, but I doubt it.

They absolutely have strong preference, but I'd like to know where the funding will come from to make it happen.  Below is cost for Buffalo's new non dome stadium.  Cleveland's proposed dome stadium cost is significantly more.  Also, there will be additional cost to build out all the bells as whistles such as restaurants and hotels that Haslem wants.  

 

Buffalo 

The stadium is estimated to cost $1.7 billion. Under an agreement with the state of New York, taxpayers will pay $850 million of the construction cost (with $600 million coming from New York State and $250 million coming from Erie County).

 

2 minutes ago, newyorker said:

They absolutely have strong preference, but I'd like to know where the funding will come from to make it happen.  Below is cost for Buffalo's new non dome stadium.  Cleveland's proposed dome stadium cost is significantly more.  Also, there will be additional cost to build out all the bells as whistles such as restaurants and hotels that Haslem wants.  

 

Buffalo 

The stadium is estimated to cost $1.7 billion. Under an agreement with the state of New York, taxpayers will pay $850 million of the construction cost (with $600 million coming from New York State and $250 million coming from Erie County).

 

 

Assuming BP is it, the real win for NYS (there wasn't much to celebrate TBH) but Pegula's/Bills are responsible for all cost overruns. So the state/county number is concrete. I doubt any other franchise will agree to those terms going forward. 

17 minutes ago, cfdwarrior said:

  I hate to comment in this thread because I feel it is so polarizing, but I don't think this offer will be enough.  I feel the Browns organization have wanted a dome the whole time.  I'm not sure how Brookpark will accommodate this desire monetarily, but we shall see.  The idea of the football village is a good idea, but in my opinion the location is just terrible.  I was a Cleveland resident for 30 years, but now I am back to where I grew up (Medina).  I can speak from both sides of the fence as to location.  I think the dome would serve DT much better than Brookpark.  Beyond football, whatever would be going on in the dome, there is much more to do DT than in BP.  As far as safety, suburban folks seem to think there are hordes of criminals just waiting for them when they enter the city.  Yes, there is a crime element, but don't think that these same criminals won't make their way to BP on game day (or whatever may be going on).  

  I have a feeling other than game day, this project will turn into a dead zone.  What will the draw be?  Shopping? Bars? restaurants?  What ancillaries does BP offer?  It will be busy for a bit I am sure, but once the shininess wears off will it be a destination?  I haven't even scratched on the traffic situation and the logistics that are going to have to be planned out to relieve the highway back up on game days.  What about RTA trains?  Will they extend beyond the airport to the "village"?  

  I'm not sure what it would have taken to sell the DT land to the Haslam's or if it even could have been done, but once they purchased in BP I feel it was a done deal.  I think this last minute proposal was to make the city look as if they weren't going down without a fight, but I feel the fight was over before it started.  I hope I will eat crow on this one, but I doubt it.

It's not like downtown Cleveland is bustling during the majority of game days either. Muni fans get trashed, pay tribute to horrible people like Brown and Watson, watch the game, then go home to get further trashed.

 

The whole idea of the stadium being some impetus for bigtime economic activity just hasn't worked out besides some hotels and restaurants/bars having higher attendances.

I think the phrase “fan experience” largely refers to fans sitting inside a comfortable dome - and that’s clearly what the Browns have really wanted all along. 
 

Haslam ‘s calculation is that he will recoup everything he spends in BP and ultimately, that’s his long term ticket to even bigger money. 

15 minutes ago, newyorker said:

They absolutely have strong preference, but I'd like to know where the funding will come from to make it happen.  Below is cost for Buffalo's new non dome stadium.  Cleveland's proposed dome stadium cost is significantly more.  Also, there will be additional cost to build out all the bells as whistles such as restaurants and hotels that Haslem wants.  

 

Buffalo 

The stadium is estimated to cost $1.7 billion. Under an agreement with the state of New York, taxpayers will pay $850 million of the construction cost (with $600 million coming from New York State and $250 million coming from Erie County).

 

Only 60k seats there too and literally able to build the the stadium on parcel ready parking lots across the street. I think they would need around 1.5bn at least from public funds for Brook Park just for the stadium alone. Grotesque amount for a suburban site that provides no ROI and just cannibalizes other suburban destinations. I also find it head scratching they want very similar mixed use development only five miles apart in Berea and Brook Park. If they were totally balls in on the suburbs would surely make sense to combine everything. Like the Star in Dallas but with an added stadium as a training facility alone isn't going to spur vibrancy in suburban Cleveland like it might do in Dallas.

8 minutes ago, TBideon said:

It's not like downtown Cleveland is bustling during the majority of game days either. Muni fans get trashed, pay tribute to horrible people like Brown and Watson, watch the game, then go home to get further trashed.

 

The whole idea of the stadium being some impetus for bigtime economic activity just hasn't worked out besides some hotels and restaurants/bars having higher attendances.

The stadium being next to an existing critical mass is a good thing, IMO. I just don't see how on isolated walled off island in Brook Park it supports and sustains development.

 

 

I think BP will be attractive to West Siders (Initially) and Browns die hard fans but outside of that I don't see it being filled. East Siders will go to Pinecrest, Legacy Village, Eton and the Van Aken District. West siders will go to Crocker Park and Strongsville. A development of this magnitude should be centralized or close to centralized for it to work, you'd need REGIONAL support for it to make sense. I know I won't be traveling 30+ Minutes for a $15 burger when I can stay east or go Downtown and explore other things when I'm done. This will be similar to Tower City Center in the 90's, it will be the shiny new toy initially but as that wears off, convenience will win out every time. Their biggest hope would be that they have spill over from their Berea Development and overnight travelers from the airport.  

Edited August 2, 2024Aug 2 by MyPhoneDead

12 minutes ago, MyPhoneDead said:

I think BP will be attractive to West Siders (Initially) and Browns die hard fans but outside of that I don't see it being filled. East Siders will go to Pinecrest, Legacy Village, Eton and the Van Aken District. West siders will go to Crocker Park and Strongsville. A development of this magnitude should be centralized or close to centralized for it to work, you'd need REGIONAL support for it to make sense. I know I won't be traveling 30+ Minutes for a $15 burger when I can stay east or go Downtown and explore other things when I'm done. This will be similar to Tower City Center in the 90's, it will be the shiny new toy initially but as that wears off, convenience will win out every time. Their biggest hope would be that they have spill over from their Berea Development and overnight travelers from the airport.  

I’ll do your pessimistic vision, one better. It’s not gonna get built in the first place, the ancillary development that is, for many of the reasons stated above, and primarily location. If Haslin wants all this shiny stuff around his dome, he’s gonna have to pay for it himself cash. I can’t see any rational bank or entity financing it, especially in a stagnant region like Northeast Ohio. So many other options already built in better locations.