Still disagree with your comment. Most people that go to Brown’s games are from the greater Cleveland anyway, not from far away looking to explore a city during a Browns game. We  don’t need another “life center”in the  suburbs when we’re still trying to grow and improve downtown. Huge mistake if they move to brookpark.

23 minutes ago, TDi said:

Because people don't travel to games to see suburbs. They travel to explore the amenities of cities. 

Still disagree with your comment. Most people that go to Brown’s games are from the greater Cleveland anyway, not from far away looking to explore a city during a Browns game. We  don’t need another “life center”in the  suburbs when we’re still trying to grow and improve downtown. Huge mistake if they move to brookpark.

 

Quote

2 hours ago, Whipjacka said:

 

I'm no lawyer, but the  Art Model law feels like it wouldn't hold up on appeal.

 

It applies to the metro - not the city proper 

1 hour ago, AsDustinFoxWouldSay said:

We had massive parking lots on Public Square for literal decades. This kind of thinking is naive. Businesses and major entities leaving downtown are not and will not be a good thing. How's that Medical Mutual building shaping up? 

But as the stock of properties available for conversion shrinks, so will those lots eventually. Besides, downtown is booming. Look at the number of people who live in downtown now compared to 20-25 years ago - and it continues to grow. The Cavs and Guards are downtown and they play at home for far more dates than the Browns. No,this stadium doesnt have to be downtown and the city will be fine without it

29 minutes ago, Justbuildit said:

Still disagree with your comment. Most people that go to Brown’s games are from the greater Cleveland anyway, not from far away looking to explore a city during a Browns game. We  don’t need another “life center”in the  suburbs when we’re still trying to grow and improve downtown. Huge mistake if they move to brookpark.

 

Quote

I agree with you. I don't think it should be in  Brookpark at all. But if that's where it's going I just don't think it's going to magically attract all these people to Brookpark before and after the games.

Just now, TDi said:

I agree with you. I don't think it should be in  Brookpark at all. But if that's where it's going I just don't think it's going to magically attract all these people to Brookpark before and after the games.

I agree

I will say people will travel for games from afar if you create an experience around it.  However could that have been done downtown, yes.  However I really don't think the city is putting much effort into it.  I presume they like the idea of opening up what is essentially Cleveland's only piece of large contiguous lakefront without several hurdles to jump through.  This is an incredible opportunity that can yield much more than a sports venue.  If we pass on opening up this large piece of lakefront property, we are essentially saying that we have zero confidence in private development from all angles.  An opportunity that any redeveloping, progressive city dreams about.  My opinion, this is a softball being tossed up for Cleveland'd continued renaissance.  A "miss" on this, and baren lakefront land for years to come would be a huge failure.

Edited August 7, 2024Aug 7 by Jenny

As someone else mentioned earlier in the thread but I think it's worth repeating; this could be a nice help for RTA funding. Now they have a pretty big customer on their side that would love to see some new and well maintained infrastructure if the stadium is going to be right next to the red line. A good chance to get some funding approved for RTA that could potentially help the whole region.

Doubt if the Brook Park site sees more than a couple hotels and a few bars. Can't see how apartments or any kind of shopping district happens there. Maybe a fancy movie theater or that sought after Ikea if we're getting crazy and Jimmy really pulls some strings.

 

I'm preparing myself mentally for the lakefront site to be barren until about 2040....until then it will be a great space for people to do burnouts at 2:00am on a Saturday night.

^😄 See? The possibilities are endless! Frank Jackson’s dirt track may see light after all 😄

 

It will be a blank slate for the first time truly since Muni was originally built. For the first time since 1931, we have the ability to dream bigger and literally out of the box when it comes to where FES is currently.  Tax revenue can be made back, and Cleveland will not die because of this. Maybe the sports psyche will take a hit, but other than that- this could be a great thing for the city in the long run.

6 hours ago, MyPhoneDead said:

As I mentioned before, Cleveland's first Renaissance happened after the Browns left the state, not the city or region the STATE. It forced Cleveland to be creative and lean on other areas of entertainment to maintain momentum and visitors. On top of that, we are in a better position leadership wise, growth wise (especially Downtown specifically), and with the Lakefront being in the hands of a Nonprofit we now have access to money and resources that we didn't have before.

What is your definition of "Cleveland's first Renaissance?"  

1 hour ago, Oldmanladyluck said:

^😄 See? The possibilities are endless! Frank Jackson’s dirt track may see light after all 😄

 

It will be a blank slate for the first time truly since Muni was originally built. For the first time since 1931, we have the ability to dream bigger and literally out of the box when it comes to where FES is currently.  Tax revenue can be made back, and Cleveland will not die because of this. Maybe the sports psyche will take a hit, but other than that- this could be a great thing for the city in the long run.

But there is no demand.   We can make it a park, but there is no one to maintain it.   Any kind of building will be far short of the lofty goals we all hope for on Urban Ohio.  My fear is a gated community, or townhouses, like ended up happening in Buffalo.  

9 hours ago, Cleburger said:

But there is no demand.   We can make it a park, but there is no one to maintain it.   Any kind of building will be far short of the lofty goals we all hope for on Urban Ohio.  My fear is a gated community, or townhouses, like ended up happening in Buffalo.  

 

hate to say it, and i could be wrong, but from anything i’ve ever read i think it would need a lot more fill for anything substantional to be built, which would set development back at least a few years. residential anything would have to be above parking/retail. same for burke.

9 hours ago, Cleburger said:

We can make it a park, but there is no one to maintain it. 

If Burke was ever closed and turned into a park it would almost certainly be transferred to Cleveland Metroparks as part of their lakefront reservation. It goes without saying the Metroparks has a fantastic track record of managing and maintaining hundred+ acre parks. I have full confidence in their ability to handle the maintenance and conversion. I don't think there's much of a chance that the city tries to hold on to and manage this hypothetical park, even they have to realize that would be foolhardy. 

9 hours ago, Cleburger said:

But there is no demand.   We can make it a park, but there is no one to maintain it.   Any kind of building will be far short of the lofty goals we all hope for on Urban Ohio.  My fear is a gated community, or townhouses, like ended up happening in Buffalo.  

 

I don't know if anyone can truly say they know there is no demand for any housing/retail/office where FES is now because this location has only had one use - a stadium - for close to 100 years.  We all know there is demand to live downtown, and this would be the first time this site would potentially be available.  I believe that the uses, form, and scale of any build-out of the site would depend on leadership from the city.

Y’all are being very doom and gloom on here. The stadium is moving to Brook Park, let’s all accept that and move onto how the City of Cleveland can take advantage of this situation.

As an alternative, perhaps the stadium would be best kept, refurbished, and repurposed. Barcelona and Bejing have succesfully adapted old stadiums, and the lakefront project still needs a major, visible anchor tenant before any of these fairy tale developments begin.

 

Bush stadium in Indianapolis changed from a traditional stadium to car lot to (presumably) expensive apartments. Maybe that's what Browns stadium could be. It would be cool as f to live there.

5 minutes ago, Enginerd said:

Y’all are being very doom and gloom on here. The stadium is moving to Brook Park, let’s all accept that and move onto how the City of Cleveland can take advantage of this situation.

Losing the Browns a second time is still a bummer, especially if public subsidies are involved with this nonsense in Brookpark. Give us a few days (even if at times contradictory) to react.

Just now, TBideon said:

Losing the Browns a second time is still a bummer, especially if public subsidies are involved with this nonsense in Brookpark. Give us a few days (even if at times contradictory) to react.

 

But we didn't lose the Browns like last time, they're moving one suburb over which should hopefully connect to public transit. 

 

1 hour ago, Ethan said:

If Burke was ever closed and turned into a park it would almost certainly be transferred to Cleveland Metroparks as part of their lakefront reservation. It goes without saying the Metroparks has a fantastic track record of managing and maintaining hundred+ acre parks. I have full confidence in their ability to handle the maintenance and conversion. I don't think there's much of a chance that the city tries to hold on to and manage this hypothetical park, even they have to realize that would be foolhardy. 

 

Something to keep in mind, Metroparks are running a tight budget, obviously it's hard to forecast 10 years out, but they're anticipating a cash balance of ~$500k by 2032. They've had some (unanticipated) acquisitions in the past year that took their estimated 60M balance to 47M. If they're going to take on more projects grants are going to have to be the biggest piece of the pie (this is the route they're taking with CHEERS). 

 

https://special_district-cleveland-metroparks-oh-budget-book.cleargov.com/10704/fund-summaries/ten-year-financial-forecast 

I think it's fair to be skeptical because the city's billionaire development partner, who also happens to have deep political connections to the statehouse, is walking away. From my light research, all projects like this need some private investment. Our problem isn't demand or lack of ideas, it's access to capital. But at the heart of this challenge is a philosophical difference between what Bibb thinks the land should be used for vs. what someone looking to make a profitable return thinks. 

 

8 minutes ago, GISguy said:

 

But we didn't lose the Browns like last time, they're moving one suburb over which should hopefully connect to public transit. 

I know what you mean, but don't fully agree. It's like Eaton moving to Beachwood. It's still in the region and identified as a Cleveland company (or maybe Irish, I dunno), but E9/Euclid sure feels barren these days.

 

Edited August 7, 2024Aug 7 by TBideon

Cleveland needs to figure out how to stop losing companies and teams. 

24 minutes ago, coneflower said:

I think it's fair to be skeptical because the city's billionaire development partner, who also happens to have deep political connections to the statehouse, is walking away. From my light research, all projects like this need some private investment. Our problem isn't demand or lack of ideas, it's access to capital. But at the heart of this challenge is a philosophical difference between what Bibb thinks the land should be used for vs. what someone looking to make a profitable return thinks. 

 

 

But Jimbo isn't the only developer in Cleveland. And I think any lakefront development benefits from having multiple developers involved, both from diversifying risk (see the stall of development on the East Bank of the Flats) and from not resulting in a bland sameness in design. 

30 minutes ago, Oldmanladyluck said:

 

I don't know if anyone can truly say they know there is no demand for any housing/retail/office where FES is now because this location has only had one use - a stadium - for close to 100 years.  We all know there is demand to live downtown, and this would be the first time this site would potentially be available.  I believe that the uses, form, and scale of any build-out of the site would depend on leadership from the city.

 

IMO one of the most popular misconceptions on this board is there is a high demand for lakefront living east of downtown.   I shared this view until I moved up there, and now that I also spend a lot of time on the Euclid lakefront I'm even more skeptical.

 

With the exception of Bratenhal (a special case for numerous reasons) you simply don't see the premiums you see to the west.   

 

My view is the cold wind we see much of the year has a lot to do with it, and as all Browns fans know that's also an issue at CBS.   The shape of the shore isn't going to change.

 

People are here saying we don't want to make it "exclusive" or high end like Buffalo did, but TBH that's the only way I see successfully making that area residential.

29 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

But Jimbo isn't the only developer in Cleveland. And I think any lakefront development benefits from having multiple developers involved, both from diversifying risk (see the stall of development on the East Bank of the Flats) and from not resulting in a bland sameness in design. 

 

This is outside my lane, so I'll gladly be schooled, but it seems to me if our local developers had the capacity, we'd be further along in many locations. That is not to disparage anyone but just to say their resources may be limited compared to peers in bigger cities.

 

To @E Rocc's point about the environment being rough in the winter. Again, not an engineer or architect, but this seems like something that can be improved through design. 

Edited August 7, 2024Aug 7 by coneflower

1 minute ago, E Rocc said:

People are here saying we don't want to make it "exclusive" or high end like Buffalo did, but TBH that's the only way I see successfully making that area residential.

 

There are lots of examples though of desirable coastal communities that aren't walled-off fortresses.  

16 hours ago, TDi said:

Because people don't travel to games to see suburbs. They travel to explore the amenities of cities. 

But according to most of the posts here, Browns fans just get drunk at muni and don't contribute much to the downtown economy.

56 minutes ago, TMart said:

But according to most of the posts here, Browns fans just get drunk at muni and don't contribute much to the downtown economy.

Muni Lot people you probably lose to this Brookpark site but as you said those people dont contribute much to downtown on gameday anyway other than tailgate aesthetics.  To play devils advocate to that though, will those people want to pay what Jimmy wants for a parking spot and wait in traffic while 20k+ cars try to get into Brookpark to tailgate or can Cleveland lure them downtown still with incentives of cheaper or even free parking on gamedays.

Edited August 7, 2024Aug 7 by TDi

8 minutes ago, TDi said:

Muni Lot people you probably lose to this Brookpark site but as you said those people dont contribute much to downtown on gameday anyway other than tailgate aesthetics.  To play devils advocate to that though, will those people want to pay what Jimmy wants for a parking spot in Brookpark to tailgate or can Cleveland lure them downtown still with incentives of cheaper or even free parking on gamedays.

 

Free parking for Browns fans to tailgate is an enormous opportunity cost for the city in preserving and maintaining surface lots for this purpose. 

30 minutes ago, TDi said:

Muni Lot people you probably lose to this Brookpark site but as you said those people dont contribute much to downtown on gameday anyway other than tailgate aesthetics.  To play devils advocate to that though, will those people want to pay what Jimmy wants for a parking spot and wait in traffic while 20k+ cars try to get into Brookpark to tailgate or can Cleveland lure them downtown still with incentives of cheaper or even free parking on gamedays.

I was being facetious. When I come up for games, one of the things I liked was being downtown, where we would have a meal, sometimes before and after a game and grab a local beer or two. I really enjoyed the experience of being downtown. But I guess I was in the minority. I think it is a huge loss for Cleveland for the Browns to leave downtown. 

2 hours ago, surfohio said:

 

There are lots of examples though of desirable coastal communities that aren't walled-off fortresses.  

 

Bratenhal isn't a walled off fortress, but it has a very assertive police force.

35 minutes ago, TMart said:

I was being facetious. When I come up for games, one of the things I liked was being downtown, where we would have a meal, sometimes before and after a game and grab a local beer or two. I really enjoyed the experience of being downtown. But I guess I was in the minority. I think it is a huge loss for Cleveland for the Browns to leave downtown. 

You’re in general majority. Browns games days start early in the mini lot people then split from there a hour before the game to people going to the game and not, then split from not going to the game and staying downtown to watch the game and people driving back home to watch the game. 
 

Muni itself is a pull to keep people downtown or at the minimum bring people down for a couple of hours(parking rev)

2 hours ago, coneflower said:

 

This is outside my lane, so I'll gladly be schooled, but it seems to me if our local developers had the capacity, we'd be further along in many locations. That is not to disparage anyone but just to say their resources may be limited compared to peers in bigger cities.

I don't have the answers but that is my impression as well. If developers were lining up to build why hasn't the Flats West Bank or the entire NE quadrant of downtown seen any real development over the last 25 years? Some will say because of all the reuse opportunities that exist here but I don't buy that. Not all developers are in the business of adaptive reuse and to me it sounds like an excuse of low expectations. If I thought developers were going to be all over the lakefront site I'd have no qualms about the Browns moving to Brook Park. 

 

Reminds me of a conversation I had with one of my buddies from Chicago about the Bears potentially moving to the suburbs. His response: Makes sense, only cities with crap downtowns would need a football stadium there because they can't fill it out with other uses. I imagine in his mind as a Chicago native there are only a handful of American cities that don't have a "crap downtown."

 

2 hours ago, coneflower said:

To @E Rocc's point about the environment being rough in the winter. Again, not an engineer or architect, but this seems like something that can be improved through design. 

The reason the near Eastside lakefront is not desirable (Bratenahl aside) is because it's always been an inhospitable industrial area. Has little to do with weather or some "only in Cleveland" nonsense. It's because industrial interests bought this land before residential developers did in the 1800's and it has stayed that way ever since. That industry no longer exists and we don't have the population growth to drive the redevelopment of it either. Further out from downtown it seems apparent to me that the living by the lake has some sort of appeal because the nicest portions of Collinwood and Euclid are clearly the blocks near the lake.

Edited August 7, 2024Aug 7 by Rustbelter

20 minutes ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

You’re in general majority. Browns games days start early in the mini lot people then split from there a hour before the game to people going to the game and not, then split from not going to the game and staying downtown to watch the game and people driving back home to watch the game. 
 

Muni itself is a pull to keep people downtown or at the minimum bring people down for a couple of hours(parking rev)

You're saying a majority of Muni fans are visibly present in Cleveland eateries and other downtown attractions on game day?

 

I'll look for studies and data validating that theory; my initial thoughts is, in my experience, the opposite is true. 

The Browns will continue to play on the lakefront for a few more years, which will give the city time to decide what to do with it after they move.  One option is to demo the stadium and turn that entire area over to redevelopment into a new neighborhood.

 

Personally, I think it would be great if we could renovate the existing stadium to smaller capacity uses -- a soccer/high school/college sports stadium and maybe build residential on the north side.  But I don't know whether that is feasible or what it would cost.  @KJP said that the stadium is falling apart because it wasn't built well, but I don't know what that means in terms of whether it could be converted to a velodrome (ha! that will never happen) or other kind of sports venue and what it would cost to build and maintain.  Just seems like repurposing is a better use of resources than complete demolition.

 

The Roman Coliseum is more amazing with every teardown of modern structures.

 

 

5 minutes ago, TBideon said:

You're saying a majority of Muni fans are visibly present in Cleveland eateries and other downtown attractions on game day?

 

I'll look for studies and data validating that theory; my initial thoughts is, in my experience, the opposite is true. 

Speaking for the general majority of the public, not speaking towards the people that go the muni lot with there own vehicle. Everyone I know falls into those 3 buckets 

50 minutes ago, Rustbelter said:

Further out from downtown it seems apparent to me that the living by the lake has some sort of appeal because the nicest portions of Collinwood and Euclid are clearly the blocks near the lake.

 

Well I live in the former and Kelly lives in the latter, both within sight of the Lake.   But "nicest" is a relative term and the prices indicate the demand is not massive.  Hell, there's at least two CMHA properties right on the lake, Lakeview Terrace and Euclid Beach Gardens, and that doesn't even include Section 8.

 

I'd mention the trailer park as well but that's being taken out for parkland, not residential.   

Why did The Haslam's spend over a million dollars to hype us about a renovated stadium on the lakefront when they presented their concept with a video of a land bridge and developed lakefront?  Why did this plan fail? 

10 minutes ago, dave2017 said:

Why did The Haslam's spend over a million dollars to hype us about a renovated stadium on the lakefront when they presented their concept with a video of a land bridge and developed lakefront?  Why did this plan fail? 

 

Billionaires doing billionaire things.

https://www.clevelandbrowns.com/news/a-letter-to-cleveland-browns-fans-across-northeast-ohio-and-beyond

"PS: F-k you"

Regardless of the politics, I will say that rendering video is extremely cool

Everything else being set aside I hope the stadium design does look as good as the video rendering. I feel so many times the concept renderings look really amazing then they quietly trim and skimp to save on costs because the cool architecture usually means higher build costs. 

As demonstrated in other markets, a project of this magnitude only realistically works through a public-private partnership. We have approached this as a 50-50 partnership on the stadium, excluding cost overruns, which we would cover. But this would be more than just a stadium project; it would also include a private development that when combined with the world-class dome stadium will be transformative for our region. The proposed $1.2 billion+ private investment in the stadium is unprecedented and would be the largest private per capita stadium investment ever in this country. And that does not include the approximately $1 billion privately funded phased development we are envisioning, which would also be tremendously impactful for our region.

 

Importantly, we are not looking to tap into existing taxpayer-funded streams, which could divert resources from other pressing needs. We are instead working on innovative funding mechanisms with local, county, and state officials that would leverage the fiscal impact of the project and the unprecedented private contribution to support the public investment and generate a substantial return for Brook Park, Cuyahoga County, and the State of Ohio.

 

--

Whatever you say Jimmy.

The renderings look cool. I'm interested for the numbers to come out, # of seats, parking spots, acres of developable land/parking, etc. Also, how they plan to connect to the airport/redline will be a deciding factor into whether or not the mixed use area succeeds or fails.

 

If for no other reason than having one more useful stop on the redline I'm rooting for this development, even if I'm skeptical of its chances. 

Gosh, NEOtrans with the scoop again. 🕵️‍♂️

 

 

4 minutes ago, GISguy said:

As demonstrated in other markets, a project of this magnitude only realistically works through a public-private partnership. We have approached this as a 50-50 partnership on the stadium, excluding cost overruns, which we would cover. But this would be more than just a stadium project; it would also include a private development that when combined with the world-class dome stadium will be transformative for our region. The proposed $1.2 billion+ private investment in the stadium is unprecedented and would be the largest private per capita stadium investment ever in this country. And that does not include the approximately $1 billion privately funded phased development we are envisioning, which would also be tremendously impactful for our region.

 

Importantly, we are not looking to tap into existing taxpayer-funded streams, which could divert resources from other pressing needs. We are instead working on innovative funding mechanisms with local, county, and state officials that would leverage the fiscal impact of the project and the unprecedented private contribution to support the public investment and generate a substantial return for Brook Park, Cuyahoga County, and the State of Ohio.

 

--

Whatever you say Jimmy.

Between that messaging and the renderings, I think the AI craze is well behind schedule. No wonder tech has had a bear run.

 

And that last sentence is pretty funny. "Hey Dee, they can't possibly be this braindead, can they?"

7 minutes ago, GISguy said:

As demonstrated in other markets, a project of this magnitude only realistically works through a public-private partnership. We have approached this as a 50-50 partnership on the stadium, excluding cost overruns, which we would cover. But this would be more than just a stadium project; it would also include a private development that when combined with the world-class dome stadium will be transformative for our region. The proposed $1.2 billion+ private investment in the stadium is unprecedented and would be the largest private per capita stadium investment ever in this country. And that does not include the approximately $1 billion privately funded phased development we are envisioning, which would also be tremendously impactful for our region.

 

Importantly, we are not looking to tap into existing taxpayer-funded streams, which could divert resources from other pressing needs. We are instead working on innovative funding mechanisms with local, county, and state officials that would leverage the fiscal impact of the project and the unprecedented private contribution to support the public investment and generate a substantial return for Brook Park, Cuyahoga County, and the State of Ohio.

 

--

Whatever you say Jimmy.

More specifics are needed... Where is all this taxpayer money coming from? And what if he can't get that much in public funds? The decision has been "made," but what if he can only get $600,000,000 in public funds, is he still set on the location if he has to put in more of his own money? Will the Browns still move to Brook Park just with a less impressive new build? It seems like there may be a lot of specifics that still need to be worked out, which could mean there's still a chance for things to fall through or change drastically. 

7 minutes ago, KJP said:

Gosh, NEOtrans with the scoop again. 🕵️‍♂️

 

 

Does look really nice, could use more trees but a good looking facility 

hope the haslams commit to paying for the demo of the old stadium. since they care so much about the success of the north coast