7 minutes ago, Htsguy said:

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. 

 

I agree. He might be hoping the Cavs or Guardians move there in the future. The space is certainly big enough.

 

Dan and Bedrock seem pretty committed to downtown. The Guards and new ownership though not as much. We'll see if anything comes of their rumored Ballpark village in the near term. 

8 minutes ago, Mendo said:

 

I agree. He might be hoping the Cavs or Guardians move there in the future. The space is certainly big enough.

 

Dan and Bedrock seem pretty committed to downtown. The Guards and new ownership though not as much. We'll see if anything comes of their rumored Ballpark village in the near term. 

Insider on another forum I frequent states they are still committing to building around the Progressive stadium. Plus they doing renovations and signed a new lease.

29 minutes ago, Htsguy said:

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. 

 

This is where I'm at too. I think Haslam is talking a big game about ancillary development, but I'm not so sure he has serious intentions about following through. If it's BP, it's a dome surrounded by parking and that it IMO.

Edited August 2, 2024Aug 2 by MostlyThere14

I'm also pessimistic about the mixed use potential of the brook park site, and financing the site seems dubious as well. Getting money from the state or county seems unlikely and undesirable. The city making their offer public only seems to decrease the likelihood of significant public contribution to a Brook Park site. I don't see the County, or Ronayne in particular, being particular forthcoming with funds, and the state hasn't historically given huge public stadium subsidies. I also doubt Brook park can do much more than reduce their tax obligation.

 

Lots of outstanding questions. Are the Browns willing to build in Berea if it means they have to fund it (almost entirely) themselves? What about the required highway and infrastructure upgrades? How much will those cost? Is there any chance ODOT decides they don't want to make those, or can't complete them by the time the stadium will need to open? When do the Browns need to start building/permitting in Brook Park to be ready for the 2029 season? Can't be that long, stadiums are big projects. 

 

There are also reasons to be optimistic about a BP move. That opens up a lot of Lakefront space with enormous potential. Hopefully the City has already been planning for this contingency, and we will see updated lakefront plans with the stadium opened up for development. In the short term this move is probably bad for the city, but in the long term this could be boon if handled well. 

38 minutes ago, Htsguy said:

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. 

Patriot Village has over twice the population within a 25 mile drive compared to Brook Park. It has 290 hotel rooms and the shopping is a slimmed down Crocker. That is BEST case scenario. And the location isn't very attractive compared to the other shopping options with other things to do within a quick drive. 

 

I agree that none of this stuff will likely be built. I don't understand the Browns fans or others who think it's going to be some grand complex and better traffic flow. It will be Arrowhead. A stadium surrounded by parking lots, with the cheapest space being $80. And an absolute nightmare to get in and out of. Downtown has like 15-20 entrance/exit ramps. BP will have 2 that aren't prepared for 2k cars, when it will be getting 50k. 

$Ms that don't go to the Browns, (although not as much without the admission tax) can instead be spent on the lakefront.

The cost for demolition of the current stadium will be eye popping, but should still leave some nice piles of loot to be used as infrastructure improvements and developer incentives.

 

Also, if the stadium stays put, I imagine Ohio & Cuyahoga to spend indirectly on new stadium support by improving the roadways and infrastructure surrounding the current site. 

 

Also, good luck to all of us getting to our (Brook Park) CLE flights on time  - any time there are stadium events (Monday/Thursday Night Football, Taylor Swift. other convert events, etc.) at a potential new Brook Park facility.

Edited August 2, 2024Aug 2 by ExPatClevGuy

1 hour ago, CleveFan said:

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. 

Have the Browns polled any fans?  I think the vast majority are OK with the current "fan experience".

One of the most important factors in the stadium decision is adjacent development opportunities. Earlier this year I made a rough proposal for what I thought a Brookpark Stadium redevelopment could look like. As I have said in earlier comments:

On 2/12/2024 at 4:32 PM, NorthShore647 said:

 

Sorry for reiterating this a bunch, but it needs to be emphasized when considering a new stadium.

 

For a very broad calculation, lets assume the Haslams want a 70,000 seat stadium that isn't in/adjacent to downtown. If the average car that drives to the stadium has 4 passengers in it, you'll need parking for ~17500 cars. Because football stadiums only host 8-9 homes games a season (plus a handful of stadium concert tours), structured parking is too costly for being used only ~60 hours a year. With surface parking you can roughly fit 150 cars per acre. That is ~117 acres of parking for 70,000 seat stadium. If only ~3 people arrive per car that's over 150 acres of surface parking. 

 

Even with the most generous assumptions (smallest stadium in the NFL, rapid transit connection, ~4 people per car), you'll still need over ~80 acres of surface parking (about the size of South Park Mall and its parking). 

 

The potential Brook Park and Highland sites have enough space for the surface parking. The Rockside site would be a little tight on space, but you could possibly get the surrounding office parks to open up there parking for events (the 49ers have a similar arrangement at their Silcom Valley office park stadium). 

 

These are some rough numbers, but to get an idea of other suburban NFL stadium parking areas in acres: BUF ~120, KC ~137, NE ~125, DC ~160, AZ ~170. 

 

Parking requirements for a stadium are significant. Parking requirements for the suburban Brookpark location limit the amount of available land to be developed as a mixed use complex stadium village. By my count, no more than ~27 acres of land could be used for the stadium village. The ~27 acre figure does not include roadways/public spaces within the stadium village. Buildable land total would be closer to ~20 acres. If you want more space for a mixed use component, you either need to build costly structured parking for the stadium or acquire more nearby land. - NOTE - This is being extremely generous with the parking totals needed. ~102 acres of surface parking as shown in the proposed site plan is roughly ~16,000 parking spots. That total is likely too low for the site (minimal parking alternatives within walking distance) even if you factor in thousands arriving via the RedLine. 

 

For a comparison to suburban developments in the region, ~27 acres is roughly the size of the initial phase of Crocker Park. This is just for comparison in terms of scale, not what the development composition would look like in Brookpark. The region certainly doesn't have the capacity for another shopping focused development (especially one at a site within ~15 minutes of two of the regions last shopping malls). The buildings could be larger at the Brookpark site, but I don't see any way that there would be financing for a structure greater in size than a "5 over 2" stick frame 7-story building.

 

TL;DR - Mixed use development "Stadium village" at Brookpark cannot exceed ~27 acres. Development area is likely smaller due to stadium parking requirements. 

7 minutes ago, NorthShore647 said:

One of the most important factors in the stadium decision is adjacent development opportunities. Earlier this year I made a rough proposal for what I thought a Brookpark Stadium redevelopment could look like. As I have said in earlier comments:

On 2/12/2024 at 4:32 PM, NorthShore647 said:

 

Sorry for reiterating this a bunch, but it needs to be emphasized when considering a new stadium.

 

For a very broad calculation, lets assume the Haslams want a 70,000 seat stadium that isn't in/adjacent to downtown. If the average car that drives to the stadium has 4 passengers in it, you'll need parking for ~17500 cars. Because football stadiums only host 8-9 homes games a season (plus a handful of stadium concert tours), structured parking is too costly for being used only ~60 hours a year. With surface parking you can roughly fit 150 cars per acre. That is ~117 acres of parking for 70,000 seat stadium. If only ~3 people arrive per car that's over 150 acres of surface parking. 

 

Even with the most generous assumptions (smallest stadium in the NFL, rapid transit connection, ~4 people per car), you'll still need over ~80 acres of surface parking (about the size of South Park Mall and its parking). 

 

The potential Brook Park and Highland sites have enough space for the surface parking. The Rockside site would be a little tight on space, but you could possibly get the surrounding office parks to open up there parking for events (the 49ers have a similar arrangement at their Silcom Valley office park stadium). 

 

These are some rough numbers, but to get an idea of other suburban NFL stadium parking areas in acres: BUF ~120, KC ~137, NE ~125, DC ~160, AZ ~170. 

Expand  

 

Parking requirements for a stadium are significant. Parking requirements for the suburban Brookpark location limit the amount of available land to be developed as a mixed use complex stadium village. By my count, no more than ~27 acres of land could be used for the stadium village. The ~27 acre figure does not include roadways/public spaces within the stadium village. Buildable land total would be closer to ~20 acres. If you want more space for a mixed use component, you either need to build costly structured parking for the stadium or acquire more nearby land. - NOTE - This is being extremely generous with the parking totals needed. ~102 acres of surface parking as shown in the proposed site plan is roughly ~16,000 parking spots. That total is likely too low for the site (minimal parking alternatives within walking distance) even if you factor in thousands arriving via the RedLine. 

 

For a comparison to suburban developments in the region, ~27 acres is roughly the size of the initial phase of Crocker Park. This is just for comparison in terms of scale, not what the development composition would look like in Brookpark. The region certainly doesn't have the capacity for another shopping focused development (especially one at a site within ~15 minutes of two of the regions last shopping malls). The buildings could be larger at the Brookpark site, but I don't see any way that there would be financing for a structure greater in size than a "5 over 2" stick frame 7-story building.

 

TL;DR - Mixed use development "Stadium village" at Brookpark cannot exceed ~27 acres. Development area is likely smaller due to stadium parking requirements. 

 

This is all speculative, but the public should have some sort of an idea of what is actually possible when we are talking about using so much public money. The Haslams have given the public very little information about key components of the entire project. We should all question what could actually be done at Brookpark to see if the Haslams can actually implement their vision. 

 

Gilbert, a man who has a long track record of successful urban development projects, first bought land behind tower city in 2010. He didn't break ground on a project there for 14 years. 

I had to lean on all my sources down in Tennessee to get this, but here ya go. Leaked footage of the plans for JimmyWORLD in Brookpark. 

 

 

15 minutes ago, NorthShore647 said:

One of the most important factors in the stadium decision is adjacent development opportunities. Earlier this year I made a rough proposal for what I thought a Brookpark Stadium redevelopment could look like. As I have said in earlier comments:

 

Parking requirements for a stadium are significant. Parking requirements for the suburban Brookpark location limit the amount of available land to be developed as a mixed use complex stadium village. By my count, no more than ~27 acres of land could be used for the stadium village. The ~27 acre figure does not include roadways/public spaces within the stadium village. Buildable land total would be closer to ~20 acres. If you want more space for a mixed use component, you either need to build costly structured parking for the stadium or acquire more nearby land. - NOTE - This is being extremely generous with the parking totals needed. ~102 acres of surface parking as shown in the proposed site plan is roughly ~16,000 parking spots. That total is likely too low for the site (minimal parking alternatives within walking distance) even if you factor in thousands arriving via the RedLine. 

 

For a comparison to suburban developments in the region, ~27 acres is roughly the size of the initial phase of Crocker Park. This is just for comparison in terms of scale, not what the development composition would look like in Brookpark. The region certainly doesn't have the capacity for another shopping focused development (especially one at a site within ~15 minutes of two of the regions last shopping malls). The buildings could be larger at the Brookpark site, but I don't see any way that there would be financing for a structure greater in size than a "5 over 2" stick frame 7-story building.

 

TL;DR - Mixed use development "Stadium village" at Brookpark cannot exceed ~27 acres. Development area is likely smaller due to stadium parking requirements. 

 

These are some super nice visualizations, thanks for putting in the time!

1 minute ago, surfohio said:

I had to lean on all my sources down in Tennessee to get this, but here ya go. Leaked footage of the plans for JimmyWORLD in Brookpark. 

 

 

Can't help but add to the shi*post but The Firm was on last night and made me deep dive into the 'Mud Island Monorail', maybe we can get one going to/from the airport! Maybe if we're lucky we get a bass pro pyramid too. 

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, GISguy said:

10 minutes ago, surfohio said:

I had to lean on all my sources down in Tennessee to get this, but here ya go. Leaked footage of the plans for JimmyWORLD in Brookpark. 

 

 

Can't help but add to the shi*post but The Firm was on last night and made me deep dive into the 'Mud Island Monorail', maybe we can get one going to/from the airport! Maybe if we're lucky we get a bass pro pyramid too. 

 

 

 

Hey if we are looking at a building a monorail, maybe extend it to the IX center. There was a people mover concept to serve the IX Center in one of the Rapid extension proposals to Berea years ago. There would be room for a Bass Pro Shop next door! Or maybe even just convert the entire IX center into a Bass Pro Shop! It worked in Tennessee.  / s

I wish more of the supporters of the BP option understood that when the stadium opens for its first game, it isn't going to be surrounded by some glamorous village with all of the amenities. If they ever do in fact deliver on their total plan laid out in the renderings, that is going to take years and years to complete. So they will be walking out of the stadium to a massive surface parking lot and have to drive around to random bars nearby if they want to keep the party going.

52 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

Have the Browns polled any fans?  I think the vast majority are OK with the current "fan experience".

I can't remember if it was 2 years ago or last year, they sent out a questionaire to season ticket holders that was all about fan and gameday experiences. I'm sure they used the results of the questionaire when developing a plan.

These endless Boomer power plays of wanting to drag everything important out to the suburbs get so old. They are literally the only ones that want stuff out there and most of them won't even be around in 15 years.

Any "football village" that gets built around a stadium in Brook Park is just going to be The Flats for suburbanites scared to go to The Flats. The *only* thing I could see making this sustainable is a really good connection to the airport. Football games and a dozen concerts/shows per year isnt going to cut it.

 

 

(edit: replied to comments before I saw there was a whole new page of replies... oops)

Edited August 2, 2024Aug 2 by daybreaker

1 minute ago, daybreaker said:

Any "football village" that gets built around a stadium in Brook Park is just going to be The Flats for suburbanites scared to go to The Flats. The *only* thing I could see making this sustainable is a really good connection to the airport. Football games and a dozen concerts/shows per year isnt going to cut it.

If we had a more densely populated region and multiple rail lines going to the airport, it could work. Many bigger airports in Europe are just a big mall and train station connected to the airport. I think there are just too many obstacles here though. The freight tracks, highway, and other parking/land. Unless they were to build like a half mile long underground mall connecting the two sites. 

2 hours ago, Mendo said:

 

I agree. He might be hoping the Cavs or Guardians move there in the future. The space is certainly big enough.

 

Dan and Bedrock seem pretty committed to downtown. The Guards and new ownership though not as much. We'll see if anything comes of their rumored Ballpark village in the near term. 

The Guards just signed a 25 year lease. What do you mean?

2 hours ago, LibertyBlvd said:

Have the Browns polled any fans?  I think the vast majority are OK with the current "fan experience".

When Jimmy says “fan”, he doesn’t mean Joe Sixpack who has been driving in for the last 30 years from Celeryville, OH to tailgate in the Muni lot, sit in the upper deck and is still wearing the Browns hoodie he bought from a WalMart in 1998. He’s talking about corporate ‘fans’’, out-of-town tourists and people watching on tv. 

All of us here are pointing out the negatives while Ken has said the decision has already been made. I read that as it's BP. But l still don't see where the billions are coming from unless Haslam knows something we don't.

 

If he wants to add a village around the stadium he'll have to build that himself and that's on top of his share of a dome. Really??

 

I think the best option is the by the way news that the city will work with the team to use the land north of the stadium to create a village. That can work. The team stays downtown, neither Haslam nor the taxpayer's are on the hook for several billion for a dome, village and infrustruture. Haslam and the city gets revenue from the village at a much lower cost. Let's hope saner heads prevail and the project gets built downtown.

27 minutes ago, marty15 said:

The Guards just signed a 25 year lease. What do you mean?

 

I was just thinking long term. The Guards extension is through 2036 with 2 5 year club options after that. That's essentially 10 years before the conversation starts up again. That's why I wondered whether the Ballpark village is still moving forward as that makes it less likely they are going anywhere. 

 

Edited August 2, 2024Aug 2 by Mendo

I am curious where the money will come from but if this is just a fancy strip mall, it doesn't seem that unrealistic to get off the ground. I imagine having an NFL stadium as an anchor brings some advantages just in terms of people wanting to associate themselves with the league. The idea that this will transform the region is hogwash but just having a few basic things will be enough for some people to call it a success. Especially if Browns can watch them lose in comfort 😆

 

 

Yesterday everyone here on urban ohio  was happy because cleveland made public their offer and everyone felt it was enough. I want the Brown's

stadium DOWNTOWN whether it is a renovated Browns stadium or a NEW Dome.

 

I am not interested in Brook Park. I remember the Richfield Coliseum . It was a nightmare. t was the absolute worst location possible, total gridlock coming in and going out and nowhere to go in the neighborhood except the richfield tavern on 303 after the games.   Fan experience was zero. 

This will be the same problem here except the parking will be around 80 bucks not the couple of bucks you paid in richfield. 

 

Everyone here is giving Mayor Bibb a free pass. HE IS THE ONE TO BLAME.

 

Remember Haslam wanted to place a dome on Lakeside ave where channel 3 is. BIBB nixed this idea.

So Haslam then came up the Haslam lakefront plan where he would have developed some apartments, hotels etc along with the landbridge.

BIBB nixed this plan as he did not want the lakefront to because to be a showpiece nationally as a place  for the wealthy, BUT BIBB wants the lakefront

to be a gathering place for the residents so they can hang around and loiter. 

 

So after being NIXED twice haslam went and purchased an option to purchase 176 acres in Brook Park. 

 

This should have never happened if the city would worked with Haslam AS they are currently working with Bedrock on the riverfront.

 

There was no talk of Brook Park until BIBB came along.

 

Yes, let's give the criminal billionaire the benefit of the doubt. 

40 minutes ago, simplythis said:

Remember Haslam wanted to place a dome on Lakeside ave where channel 3 is. BIBB nixed this idea.

 

I'm pretty sure they nixed the idea because the city didn't want to go around eminent domaining everyone in the neighborhood or fighting with someone who believes their dilappedated garage is worth $10M. 

Edited August 2, 2024Aug 2 by coneflower

4 minutes ago, coneflower said:

 

I'm pretty sure they nixed the idea because the city didn't want to go around eminent domaining everyone in the neighborhood or fighting with someone who believes their dilappedated garage is worth $10M. 

Right. The process of accumulating all the necessary land would’ve taken years and cost a fortune.

4 minutes ago, coneflower said:

 

I'm pretty sure they nixed the idea because the city didn't want to go around eminent domaining everyone in the neighborhood or fighting with someone who believes their dilappedated garage is worth $10M. 

 

This is right, it wasn't that long ago that the city was stuck in court with the Georges over the lot on the corner of Detroit and W25. 

6 hours ago, GREGinPARMA said:

I wish more of the supporters of the BP option understood that when the stadium opens for its first game, it isn't going to be surrounded by some glamorous village with all of the amenities. If they ever do in fact deliver on their total plan laid out in the renderings, that is going to take years and years to complete. So they will be walking out of the stadium to a massive surface parking lot and have to drive around to random bars nearby if they want to keep the party going.

That's the thing I wish these supporters would get. Jimmy's priority is getting that sweet parking revenue for tailgaiting that currently goes to the city government ie Muni lot 

3 hours ago, Whipjacka said:

I take this that fans just want a dome no matter where it is. 

Or that ESPN 850's listening base is solely exurban boomers, which I highly suspect is the case as well

The Browns need to stay in downtown Cleveland. Most people are correct. A new stadium in the Brookpark will be surrounded with a gigantic parking lot. And a traffic nightmare.

Edited August 2, 2024Aug 2 by Justbuildit
Spelling

19 hours ago, simplythis said:

Yesterday everyone here on urban ohio  was happy because cleveland made public their offer and everyone felt it was enough. I want the Brown's

stadium DOWNTOWN whether it is a renovated Browns stadium or a NEW Dome.

 

I am not interested in Brook Park. I remember the Richfield Coliseum . It was a nightmare. t was the absolute worst location possible, total gridlock coming in and going out and nowhere to go in the neighborhood except the richfield tavern on 303 after the games.   Fan experience was zero. 

This will be the same problem here except the parking will be around 80 bucks not the couple of bucks you paid in richfield. 

 

Everyone here is giving Mayor Bibb a free pass. HE IS THE ONE TO BLAME.

 

Remember Haslam wanted to place a dome on Lakeside ave where channel 3 is. BIBB nixed this idea.

So Haslam then came up the Haslam lakefront plan where he would have developed some apartments, hotels etc along with the landbridge.

BIBB nixed this plan as he did not want the lakefront to because to be a showpiece nationally as a place  for the wealthy, BUT BIBB wants the lakefront

to be a gathering place for the residents so they can hang around and loiter. 

 

So after being NIXED twice haslam went and purchased an option to purchase 176 acres in Brook Park. 

 

This should have never happened if the city would worked with Haslam AS they are currently working with Bedrock on the riverfront.

 

There was no talk of Brook Park until BIBB came along.

 

Man. Kevin Kelley’s burner accounts are really on fire lately! Again. I’ll see myself out. Please don’t ban me. 

Wehttps://www.clevescene.com/news/as-cleveland-makes-stadium-pitch-optimism-in-brook-park-after-meetings-with-haslam-reps-for-new-dome-44846659

 

Meeting last Wednesday between HSG and Brook Park. Disneyland and Crocker Park is the vision! Still trying to figure out how to pay for it, with it likely going to be a heavy lean on the State as opposed to the County. This is going to get very messy I think.

Edited August 4, 2024Aug 4 by snakebite

Ah luxury condos in brook park next to a noisy airport and a sea of parking. What a dream. 

19 minutes ago, cle_guy90 said:

Ah luxury condos in brook park next to a noisy airport and a sea of parking. What a dream. 

Lol Last night I was showing my girlfriend the renderings and she said the exact same thing. 

On 8/2/2024 at 4:35 PM, coneflower said:

On 8/2/2024 at 3:55 PM, simplythis said:

Remember Haslam wanted to place a dome on Lakeside ave where channel 3 is. BIBB nixed this idea.

 

I'm pretty sure they nixed the idea because the city didn't want to go around eminent domaining everyone in the neighborhood or fighting with someone who believes their dilappedated garage is worth $10M. 

 

I had previously considered a northeast downtown stadium site extensively when trying to identify all possible regional stadium locations earlier this year. Just in case anyone was interested in the prospect of a stadium here, and why it was / should be excluded:

 

There are only really two land agglomerations you could make along St. Clair (with vacated Lakeside/Hamilton) for a browns stadium. West of Cleveland Thermal would require the demolition of a High School (and WKYC, FBI Field Office building, city EMS HQ...) , east would require the demolition of the state's largest homeless shelter. Both would require require the demolition of some 20 small businesses employing hundreds. One of the many factors that led to downtown Cleveland's deterioration in the post war years was the large scale destruction of city blocks on its periphery (Erieview), wiping out entire business communities. Downtown is still trying to recover from these demolitions. We don't need to be repeating the disastrous mistakes of the past for a facility used ~12 days a year. It would be fine if the Haslams worked on the land agglomeration themselves (while relocating local public services), but the city shouldn't be burning through the political capital necessary to accomplish such a feat. 

 

Here is a very rough look at either site option and the likely minimal amount of lots necessary. This does not include additional acquisitions for a stadium adjacent mixed use development.

 

TL;DR - Reminder that the northeast downtown stadium option would have been incredibly difficult. Demo homeless shelter, or high school?

2 minutes ago, NorthShore647 said:

 

I had previously considered a northeast downtown stadium site extensively when trying to identify all possible regional stadium locations earlier this year. Just in case anyone was interested in the prospect of a stadium here, and why it was / should be excluded:

 

There are only really two land agglomerations you could make along St. Clair (with vacated Lakeside/Hamilton) for a browns stadium. West of Cleveland Thermal would require the demolition of a High School (and WKYC, FBI Field Office building, city EMS HQ...) , east would require the demolition of the state's largest homeless shelter. Both would require require the demolition of some 20 small businesses employing hundreds. One of the many factors that led to downtown Cleveland's deterioration in the post war years was the large scale destruction of city blocks on its periphery (Erieview), wiping out entire business communities. Downtown is still trying to recover from these demolitions. We don't need to be repeating the disastrous mistakes of the past for a facility used ~12 days a year. It would be fine if the Haslams worked on the land agglomeration themselves (while relocating local public services), but the city shouldn't be burning through the political capital necessary to accomplish such a feat. 

 

Here is a very rough look at either site option and the likely minimal amount of lots necessary. This does not include additional acquisitions for a stadium adjacent mixed use development.

 

TL;DR - Reminder that the northeast downtown stadium option would have been incredibly difficult. 

 

Worth also asking whether Jimmy was still interested in this as an option given he wants to control parking and ancillary development opportunities. Based on the sites you identified it doesn't look like there'd be all that much in the way of additional commercial or residential development without additional land acquisitions.

2 hours ago, ASPhotoman said:

2 hours ago, cle_guy90 said:

Ah luxury condos in brook park next to a noisy airport and a sea of parking. What a dream. 

Lol Last night I was showing my girlfriend the renderings and she said the exact same thing. 

 

And the Ford engine plant, high voltage lines, warehouse, moat of freeways (around the moat of surface parking), separate long term parking facilities, miscellaneous light industry, active railyard, construction suppliers...

 

None of these things are "bad" for a city / region to have. They are just maybe not the best location for a high impact mixed use development. 

5 minutes ago, NorthShore647 said:

 

And the Ford engine plant, high voltage lines, warehouse, moat of freeways (around the moat of surface parking), separate long term parking facilities, miscellaneous light industry, active railyard, construction suppliers...

 

None of these things are "bad" for a city / region to have. They are just maybe not the best location for a high impact mixed use development. 

These points and other development disadvantages of this site have been reiterated in this thread over and over by forum members.  If it is so obvious to us why is it not to Haslam.  He is a billionaire...he must have some business savvy.  He is clearly drawn to this site because of its size so he can build his dome and control a sea of parking.  The other stuff is just hype and won't happen.

I understand how the majority of Browns fans like the BP site. Most are suburban and probably couldn’t care less about being downtown. They can drive in to a huge lot, tailgate, drive out. Traffic will suck but at least they’ll have their cars. Maybe that’s the way the NFL is going but it’s sad to me. 
 

There’s a narrative in the local media repeated to no end that the NFL is now for high rollers- they want easy parking, fancy loges and, if traveling, a flight in before the game and out after. This goes against I personally feel, and I just don’t buy it.  I travel to a good amount of games and will take exploring a city for a long weekend trip in a nice hotel every time. Heck, we live an hour walk from the stadium and will often spend the night before downtown just to take in the buzz. 
 

Whatever retail, bars, restaurants, and hotels get built around that place will only soak up a small portion of the 60k crowd. Seriously how many hotel rooms could survive in BP? The businesses will be “seasonal” for game days and big events. Not great for consistency or quality. 
 

Outside of Browns games a BP dome will really suck for other events. I think of events like those in Indy- drum corps championships, conventions, etc. 20-30k people coming and going throughout 3-4 days. All these out of towners being transported to downtown and back over and over. And if somehow a Superbowl or other big national events get hosted there it will be a terrible visitor experience compared to other warm weather cities or downtown domes. Yes, a dome is better than sitting outside in the cold but that doesn’t mean folks want to book a trip to Brook Park Ohio in the middle of winter. 

21 minutes ago, CLEmuppet said:

I understand how the majority of Browns fans like the BP site. Most are suburban and probably couldn’t care less about being downtown. They can drive in to a huge lot, tailgate, drive out. Traffic will suck but at least they’ll have their cars. Maybe that’s the way the NFL is going but it’s sad to me. 
 

There’s a narrative in the local media repeated to no end that the NFL is now for high rollers- they want easy parking, fancy loges and, if traveling, a flight in before the game and out after. This goes against I personally feel, and I just don’t buy it.  I travel to a good amount of games and will take exploring a city for a long weekend trip in a nice hotel every time. Heck, we live an hour walk from the stadium and will often spend the night before downtown just to take in the buzz. 
 

Whatever retail, bars, restaurants, and hotels get built around that place will only soak up a small portion of the 60k crowd. Seriously how many hotel rooms could survive in BP? The businesses will be “seasonal” for game days and big events. Not great for consistency or quality. 
 

Outside of Browns games a BP dome will really suck for other events. I think of events like those in Indy- drum corps championships, conventions, etc. 20-30k people coming and going throughout 3-4 days. All these out of towners being transported to downtown and back over and over. And if somehow a Superbowl or other big national events get hosted there it will be a terrible visitor experience compared to other warm weather cities or downtown domes. Yes, a dome is better than sitting outside in the cold but that doesn’t mean folks want to book a trip to Brook Park Ohio in the middle of winter. 

I think the reality is, and why I personally don't care if it's built in BP, is those travelling will still be staying in downtown Cleveland or somewhere Cleveland proper and either uber or take the rail tp the game/event. Cleveland will soak in the dollars without the subsidized tax burden. 

As ridiculous as it is, the best East of downtown site may actually be building it on stilts where I suggested below. It would be hideously expensive, but so would the legal fees and delays from trying to force the acquisition of a super block as in either of the St. Claire proposals above. 

 

On 2/9/2024 at 10:40 AM, Ethan said:

I took this as a joke (which I think is how you meant it?) Nevertheless, I was kind of curious, about this probably too expensive solution. It doesn't work at the start of the muni lot, but if you push it east (~E20) until after the shoreway curves you could have a somewhat practical stadium placement without even capping the shoreway, and it's almost entirely unoccupied land.

 

 

Like I said you'd have to build a raised platform for Amtrak, E18th extension, port road, freight rail, etc. it's almost certainly not the worth the hassle or expense, but assuming it's even possible, I'm not sure it's any less reasonable than @NorthShore647 options above. Anyway, at this point there are only two (possibly just one) remaining options, so it's all water under the bridge now. 

1 hour ago, Htsguy said:

These points and other development disadvantages of this site have been reiterated in this thread over and over by forum members.  If it is so obvious to us why is it not to Haslam.  He is a billionaire...he must have some business savvy.  He is clearly drawn to this site because of its size so he can build his dome and control a sea of parking.  The other stuff is just hype and won't happen.

Exactly, so many people either on this thread or on sports radio are downplaying the major reason Jimmy wants Brookpark. The control of ALL the parking revenue. They literally said it themselves, though tongue in cheek, when they said the current stadium is not ideal for parking. They're not saying that for the poor fan finding a place to park, they're saying that they're missing out on additional revenue. 

I heard summer slam in Cleveland hit some records. Most attended summer slam in North American history (globally only passed by Wembley stadium), Most sold merch in history, also supposedly the largest gate in wrestling history which the previous record was $10.1 million 
 

36 minutes ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

I heard summer slam in Cleveland hit some records. Most attended summer slam in North American history (globally only passed by Wembley stadium), Most sold merch in history, also supposedly the largest gate in wrestling history which the previous record was $10.1 million 
 

I watched the entire broadcast - I can believe it! They did a very good job, including good promotional material for the city. Aerial coverage was great too.

streets were packed all day

On 8/2/2024 at 3:55 PM, simplythis said:

Remember Haslam wanted to place a dome on Lakeside ave where channel 3 is. BIBB nixed this idea.

So Haslam then came up the Haslam lakefront plan where he would have developed some apartments, hotels etc along with the landbridge.

BIBB nixed this plan as he did not want the lakefront to because to be a showpiece nationally as a place  for the wealthy, BUT BIBB wants the lakefront

to be a gathering place for the residents so they can hang around and loiter. 

 

This should have never happened if the city would worked with Haslam AS they are currently working with Bedrock on the riverfront.

 

Sounds to me like you’re describing the City acquiescing to Haslam’s demands. How is that “working together”?

On 8/3/2024 at 10:13 PM, snakebite said:

Wehttps://www.clevescene.com/news/as-cleveland-makes-stadium-pitch-optimism-in-brook-park-after-meetings-with-haslam-reps-for-new-dome-44846659

 

Meeting last Wednesday between HSG and Brook Park. Disneyland and Crocker Park is the vision! Still trying to figure out how to pay for it, with it likely going to be a heavy lean on the State as opposed to the County. This is going to get very messy I think.

I’m sorry but “Think Disneyland," is the most absurd comparison they could have made 😭

10 minutes ago, Enginerd said:

I’m sorry but “Think Disneyland," is the most absurd comparison they could have made 😭

Outside of game days, Dismaland will be a much better comparison.