JFC, this again?  Eminent domain would have taken many, many years.  Also ED was greatly curtailed a decade or so ago after cities got a little too grab happy trying to use it for pure economic development reasons, and not for actual public use.

It was really only a year ago that an eminent domain case was settled. One property owner (the George family) held up an entire project (Irishtown Bend) with clear public use for years in court costing millions in project cost increases, court fees, and ultimately the settlement. 

 

And there are active businesses that would have been affected. If I recall correctly Noble Beast would have had to relocate if one of the proposed sites was selected.

8 hours ago, TotalTransit said:

Excuse me for being a dumb piece of s**t and not reading this thread all the way back to 2006 to get my answer.

 

 

But what happened to the great plains of parking lots and barely-in-use-buildings that make up the large lot of city blocks in and around downtown?

 

 

I get they would need to buy out some owners, but the city could have went to bat using the ole faithful eminent domain.

 

 

Controversial but with browns backing I don't think a parking lot owner and a barely in operation warehouse would have much community rally behind it to oppose the elf.

 

 

 

 

Don't underestimate the clout of the parking lot owners and operators.   They managed to block Progressive from including integral parking in its proposed skyscraper, which was key to them staying in the suburbs.

10 hours ago, TotalTransit said:

Excuse me for being a dumb piece of s**t and not reading this thread all the way back to 2006 to get my answer.

 

 

But what happened to the great plains of parking lots and barely-in-use-buildings that make up the large lot of city blocks in and around downtown?

 

 

I get they would need to buy out some owners, but the city could have went to bat using the ole faithful eminent domain.

 

 

Controversial but with browns backing I don't think a parking lot owner and a barely in operation warehouse would have much community rally behind it to oppose the elf.

 

 

 

 

I'll chain myself to Noble Beast before this happens.

Assuming it's more or less a done deal, I'm very interested to see how both the stadium and airport highway interchanges will be engineered. Will they be split? Or will there be game day/event traffic and airport traffic constantly butting heads?

 

Also curious if any hotels will be accessible to the airport by enclosed walkway.

 

Like the airport director indicated, I hope these types of logistics have been thought out, especially since the airport interchanges are already a total mess.

17 hours ago, ClevelandNative said:

Can BP offer $461 Million ? 

 

If the city agrees to it, yes, since more stadium-related revenues/taxes/fees are to be generated by a new stadium in a community where no such facility had existed. Brook Park is just a legal/financial mechanism. It's a pass-through to a bonding authority like the state, port authority and/or a private firm. 

 

15 hours ago, MyPhoneDead said:

So if nothing besides the Stadium is actually built is it really a win for Brook Park and is it REALLY that much of a loss for Cleveland?

 

 

It will be a short-term loss. But depending on what the city does with the stadium and surfacing parking lots to handle the sudden crush of thousands of cars 10-12 days a year, it could end up being a long-term win.

22 minutes ago, brownsfan1226 said:

Assuming it's more or less a done deal, I'm very interested to see how both the stadium and airport highway interchanges will be engineered. Will they be split? Or will there be game day/event traffic and airport traffic constantly butting heads?

 

Also curious if any hotels will be accessible to the airport by enclosed walkway.

 

Like the airport director indicated, I hope these types of logistics have been thought out, especially since the airport interchanges are already a total mess.

Good points- the interchanges would require infrastructure dollars from the state, which would need to get moving to get things up and running prior to the opening of the new stadium.

 

Of course, without getting the hard commitment to BP, who knows.

This article is interesting and in alignment with my thoughts.  

 

https://signalcleveland.org/reading-between-the-lines-of-the-browns-brook-park-domed-stadium-plans/

 

59 minutes ago, Oldmanladyluck said:

Good points- the interchanges would require infrastructure dollars from the state, which would need to get moving to get things up and running prior to the opening of the new stadium.

 

Of course, without getting the hard commitment to BP, who knows.

 

I also mentioned this up thread. This is potentially a big deal, and could push up costs and delay the move post 2028 if they're not already out in front of this with ODOT.

The infrastructure work was going to be done in one of the airport master plan phases, but not in the first phase which is scheduled to start late next year.  So it will need to happen sooner if the BP stadium plans come to fruition.

27 minutes ago, Rustbelter said:

 

I also mentioned this up thread. This is potentially a big deal, and could push up costs and delay the move post 2028 if they're not already out in front of this with ODOT.

I cannot imagine any major highway infrastructure project could be completed before 2029.  Even if they started planning today (which they are not), there is also the time consuming process of finding and authorizing the money, which as we all know takes forever.  Then throw in the competition with other state projects, many of which have been in the planning, design and funding pipeline for a long and have still not started.  And as we all know actually construction takes a fair amount of time.  Look how long we have been planning, discussing and looking for money for Phase 2 of the interbelt and that is not even close to starting.  It will be a cluster f$%& for a long time.

Interesting opinion article from Crains, feels like it could have been written by some of the posters here. 

 

https://www.crainscleveland.com/commentary/personal-view-haslams-make-blunder-brook-park-plan

15 hours ago, Mendo said:

 

What monetary contribution were the Haslams going to make for anything other than the stadium?

 

From NEO Trans:

Cost of the new domed stadium and the provision of about 20,000 parking spaces, almost entirely in surface lots, is estimated at $2.4 billion. Half of that will be privately funded and create new tax revenues that will fund the other half. Much of the funding for the stadium will come from bonds serviced by new stadium-related revenues and city, county and state taxes generated by stadium activities and employment. Another $1.2 billion in private, stadium-area development is planned.

On 8/6/2024 at 9:54 AM, KJP said:

This isn't hard to understand. The public's half is coming from taxes generated by the stadium and its activities. If Cleveland did this, it would lose millions from its general fund collected on income taxes from thousands of stadium workers. It's going to lose them anyway when the stadium leaves for Brook Park, which will get the new income tax revenue and use it to service bonds to build the stadium. That's just one piece of the puzzle. The only potential tax increase I'm aware of would be Brook Park's increase in admissions taxes for large events. Other than a new domed stadium and the already fading IX Center, what else is there?

 

How many acres of surface parking lots does the city own within a half-mile of the current stadium? The Muny Lot alone is 14 acres. All of those are candidates for redevelopment if and when the city decides to offer them and to devote its share of Low Income Housing Tax Credits to spur affordable/workforce housing on those lots. Transit-supportive housing densities are a minimum of 30 units per acre. Given the proximity to downtown, I think the Muny Lot could be double that, or 800 units x 1.5 people per unit = 1,200 people = $1.77 million per year in income taxes just from developing the Muny Lot. If it sells that land, the schools get the property taxes too. How many other surface parking lots (both public and private) are around the stadium that could go away and be developed with affordable/workforce housing and generate tax revenues that would exceed any losses from the income taxes generated by the stadium?

 

The city does not have LIHTC. That is a state program that is competitive across the entire state. The city may have HOME funds but those would not be enough to spur a project.

10 minutes ago, yanni_gogolak said:

From NEO Trans:

Cost of the new domed stadium and the provision of about 20,000 parking spaces, almost entirely in surface lots, is estimated at $2.4 billion. Half of that will be privately funded and create new tax revenues that will fund the other half. Much of the funding for the stadium will come from bonds serviced by new stadium-related revenues and city, county and state taxes generated by stadium activities and employment. Another $1.2 billion in private, stadium-area development is planned.

 

The question was for the lakefront renovation, not the Brook Park site. 

36 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

The infrastructure work was going to be done in one of the airport master plan phases, but not in the first phase which is scheduled to start late next year.  So it will need to happen sooner if the BP stadium plans come to fruition.

What does this "infrastructure work" involve? I doubt it involves interchange modifications or new on/off ramps along I-71 & I-480 to serve traffic generated by a new football stadium. Not to mention new signalized intersections needed for access to the site from the surface streets. Typically the way this works is the municipality (i.e. Brook Park) would need to hire an engineering team to work with ODOT for any roadway improvements needed to accommodate newly planned developments (i.e. the Browns). Maybe some the surface streets are not under ODOT jurisdiction but the highways sure are.

 

23 minutes ago, Htsguy said:

I cannot imagine any major highway infrastructure project could be completed before 2029.  

Yup, yet I have not seen any media materials addressing this. I also have a hard time believing this process starting from scratch has any chance of accommodating the Brown's schedule. If the Browns and Brook Park are making some attempt to stay on top of things they should at least be working towards a feasibility study. Even if they are I don't think 2029 is viable to get any major roadway improvements in place, more like into the 2030's.

1 hour ago, Rustbelter said:

What does this "infrastructure work" involve? I doubt it involves interchange modifications or new on/off ramps along I-71 & I-480 to serve traffic generated by a new football stadium. Not to mention new signalized intersections needed for access to the site from the surface streets. Typically the way this works is the municipality (i.e. Brook Park) would need to hire an engineering team to work with ODOT for any roadway improvements needed to accommodate newly planned developments (i.e. the Browns). Maybe some the surface streets are not under ODOT jurisdiction but the highways sure are.

Well, there were a few options and I don't think anything was selected. One option was re-routing SR 237 away from the airport and re-doing the airport entrance and exits on the old section of SR 237. Another option was adding an interchange at I-71 and a roadway going directly to the airport.  Access to a stadium would obviously add more complexity.

 

   

Edited August 9, 2024Aug 9 by LibertyBlvd

If BP isn’t a given, then the idea seems less desirable the more I think about it. So the current site has:

 

1) Existing infrastructure for parking

2) Multiple Shoreway exits for access

3) An existing stop on the Waterfront Line in front of the stadium

4) An existing stadium, needing renovations 

5) Existing open land directly to the north which could further the “Fan experience” through development (said development not including the Rock Hall and the Science Center)

6) Existing restaurants and bars in close proximity

The existing site does not have:

1) A dome, and seemingly never will until Burke closes.

 

Is newer always better? 

 

 

3 hours ago, Oldmanladyluck said:

If BP isn’t a given, then the idea seems less desirable the more I think about it. So the current site has:

 

1) Existing infrastructure for parking

2) Multiple Shoreway exits for access

3) An existing stop on the Waterfront Line in front of the stadium

4) An existing stadium, needing renovations 

5) Existing open land directly to the north which could further the “Fan experience” through development (said development not including the Rock Hall and the Science Center)

6) Existing restaurants and bars in close proximity

The existing site does not have:

1) A dome, and seemingly never will until Burke closes.

 

Is newer always better? 

 

 

If the Bills are building an entirely new stadium for $1.7 Billion, is $1 Billion for the renovation not enough to completely right the wrongs of the original design (Closing the gaps on the edges, adding not a dome but an extending roof overhang, etc. 

Edited August 9, 2024Aug 9 by MyPhoneDead

“We also cannot put a dome on the current building because of economic constraints and FAA restrictions.“
 

Got back to looking at this quote and the reasons for no dome on the current site is kind of weak assuming we could close the airport by the time construction would start on the dome at current site.  Also why does the FAA have an issue with dome over the current site? If we can’t put a dome there how would we be able put buildings there?

 

and the other reasoning of economic constraints? Putting a dome on a stadium at the current site is more expensive than the BP plan?

Edited August 9, 2024Aug 9 by BoomerangCleRes

Building height limit in that area is 175'.  The height of Browns Stadium is 171'. 

Edited August 9, 2024Aug 9 by LibertyBlvd

We can’t dig into the ground at all? (I understand the fill situation but there’s surely solutions for it)

5 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

Building height limit in that area is 175'.  The height of Browns Stadium is 171'. 

Is that city restrictions or FAA?

4 minutes ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

Is that city restrictions or FAA?

I see base off reports in 2014 the FAA was pushing for building night restrictions within 10k feet to be lowered from 250ft to 160ft. Not sure if that ever went through. 

Just feels like an odd rule for a building that’s not in the direct flight path and could possible move further south* with all the other changes going on around it 

Edited August 9, 2024Aug 9 by BoomerangCleRes

39 minutes ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

“We also cannot put a dome on the current building because of economic constraints and FAA restrictions.“
 

Got back to looking at this quote and the reasons for no dome on the current site is kind of weak assuming we could close the airport by the time construction would start on the dome at current site.  Also why does the FAA have an issue with dome over the current site? If we can’t put a dome there how would we be able put buildings there?

 

I know we have some actual pilots on this forum, so I’m happy to be corrected, but someone told me that the Port of Cleveland is used as a visual landmark/ reference point for both commercial and military aircraft. Military aircraft could, of course, be flying very fast and low, hence the height restriction keeping the view clear for as long as possible. 

10 minutes ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

Just feels like an odd rule for a building that’s not in the direct flight path and could possible move further east with all the other changes going on around it 

 

Flight path restrictions don't apply to an area just the width of the runway, they are much wider than that and get wider further away from the runway.

2 hours ago, Geowizical said:

 

Flight path restrictions don't apply to an area just the width of the runway, they are much wider than that and get wider further away from the runway.

Would be useful and interesting if someone could overlay this to scale with the Burke runways 

2 hours ago, Geowizical said:

 

Flight path restrictions don't apply to an area just the width of the runway, they are much wider than that and get wider further away from the runway.

Correct

2 hours ago, roman totale XVII said:

I know we have some actual pilots on this forum, so I’m happy to be corrected, but someone told me that the Port of Cleveland is used as a visual landmark/ reference point for both commercial and military aircraft. Military aircraft could, of course, be flying very fast and low, hence the height restriction keeping the view clear for as long as possible. 

Ive used the Port, Whiskey Island, Downtown, the North Olmstead Water Tower...all for visuals to CLE. For BKL, i cant remember the last time i landed on the 6's but you should already have the rnwy in sight and on a stable aporoach by the time you fly over the port. Overflight of stadium is a no-no

 

 

5 hours ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

Would be useful and interesting if someone could overlay this to scale with the Burke runways 

No judgement as it’s a Friday night don’t feel like grabbing my laptop here’s my lazy version from my phone. Scale is based on the 200ft listing and matched that up with the football field width which is 160ft. 
 

so based off this really rough estimate the stadium is jussst touching boundary but with my questionable photoshop the stadium could very well be clear of the boundary

Edited August 10, 2024Aug 10 by BoomerangCleRes

8 hours ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

No judgement as it’s a Friday night don’t feel like grabbing my laptop here’s my lazy version from my phone. Scale is based on the 200ft listing and matched that up with the football field width which is 160ft. 
 

so based off this really rough estimate the stadium is jussst touching boundary but with my questionable photoshop the stadium could very well be clear of the boundary

Aaaaaand this is why I said close Burke ASAP, it hinders Lakefront development.

Burke shouldn't go anywhere unless there are committed and signed developers and tenants. No more we-build/hype-it-and-they-will-come, oh-s**t-they-never-came, projects. 

 

Burke serves a purpose - well, presumably, who really knows - and a concrete plan needs to be established before downtown loses another large entity.

 

Also, no Phase 1 through Phase... well, generally, they seem to stop at 1. Those phases have got to be locked in so we aren't left with yet another invisible Neiman Marcus, Civic Vision 2000, Warehouse District Project, real casino, lakefront outlet mall, Tower City Blockchain paradise, Nucleus, Medical Mart, etc, etc, etc. God we've spent so many hours (days? years?) discussing those dead projects that never got beyond Phase 0 or 1. It's exhausting.

 

Edited August 10, 2024Aug 10 by TBideon

9 hours ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

No judgement as it’s a Friday night don’t feel like grabbing my laptop here’s my lazy version from my phone. Scale is based on the 200ft listing and matched that up with the football field width which is 160ft. 
 

so based off this really rough estimate the stadium is jussst touching boundary but with my questionable photoshop the stadium could very well be clear of the boundary

Should note here that most likely you will have a departure heading assigned prior to take-off that will take you over the lake somewhat when departing 6R. I dont beleive 6L is used for departures

This jen X remembers driving down E 9th St seeing the sign “future home of Cleveland dome stadium“ where progressive field currently exists. There were a lot of pipe dreams back then that never came to fruition. It sounds like this one has legs. I never thought I would say this being it’s not downtown but I fully support this! 
 

Don’t sell yourselfs short Clevelanders. That lakefront is prime real estate. It’s not the vacant parking lot on Public Square. When I was in town out on the lake in June with friends from Florida that have never been to Cleveland they commented on the airport being on the lake and I politely told them that it is being discussed. But that’s a topic for another thread. 😊

3 hours ago, MyPhoneDead said:

Aaaaaand this is why I said close Burke ASAP, it hinders Lakefront development.

Agreed loses money and also hinders our ability to create additional revenue 

12 minutes ago, Florida Guy said:

This jen X remembers driving down E 9th St seeing the sign “future home of Cleveland dome stadium“ where progressive field currently exists. There were a lot of pipe dreams back then that never came to fruition. It sounds like this one has legs. I never thought I would say this being it’s not downtown but I fully support this! 
 

Don’t sell yourselfs short Clevelanders. That lakefront is prime real estate. It’s not the vacant parking lot on Public Square. When I was in town out on the lake in June with friends from Florida that have never been to Cleveland they commented on the airport being on the lake and I politely told them that it is being discussed. But that’s a topic for another thread. 😊

You realize there are currently vacant parking lots already behind the stadium on the lake front right? There are countless parking lots on the riverfront, particularly on the west bank of the Flats. Don't even get me started on the vacancies of dilapidated already present on the east bank of the flats on Old River Road. 

You can call the lakefront prime real estate all you want. None of it means anything if no private investors are interested in building anything, or people aren't willing to venture down there. There is a lack of interest from all parties and stakeholders. So when Downtown loses yet another significant presence to the suburbs, yea I get pretty skeptical and tired of hearing the "countless ideas we can do to develop the lakefront!"

2 hours ago, TBideon said:

Burke serves a purpose - well, presumably, who really knows

This part right here validates my point, Burke's purpose is so small and unknown that closing it wouldn't hinder anything. I feel that some people just want it there because they think it's cool to have an airport on the water. But why keep something around that really doesn't serve a critical purpose and can be replicated elsewhere.

@AsDustinFoxWouldSay Your point is well taken. And that’s the typical Cleveland prospective. We may or may not see it in our lifetime but at some point that lakefront will

be prime real estate. 

Edited August 10, 2024Aug 10 by Florida Guy

Just now, MyPhoneDead said:

This part right here validates my point, Burke's purpose is so small and unknown that closing it wouldn't hinder anything. I feel that some people just want it there because they think it's cool to have an airport on the water. But why keep something around that really doesn't serve a critical purpose and can be replicated elsewhere.

 

I need to copy and paste the following language for every time in this forum this argument comes up....

The FAA requires there to be a publicly owned reliever airport for every major commercial airport in the USA. No airport other than Burke has the runway length, terminal size and tarmac area as Burke. It is Hopkins designated reliever airport. Until some other airport in Greater Cleveland has the same or better features than Burke, it will remain the region's FAA-designated reliever airport, regardless of how lightly used it is. And, BTW, Lake in the Hills 3CK Airport is Chicago's reliever. Meigs was not at the time of its closing.

On 8/7/2024 at 3:04 PM, KJP said:

Gosh, NEOtrans with the scoop again. 🕵️‍♂️

 

 

Congratulations KJP! I was made aware of this development via email from sports illustrated. 

Vice Principal KJP re-visits the classroom to put an end to our hijinks.  ☺️

16 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

I need to copy and paste the following language for every time in this forum this argument comes up....

The FAA requires there to be a publicly owned reliever airport for every major commercial airport in the USA. No airport other than Burke has the runway length, terminal size and tarmac area as Burke. It is Hopkins designated reliever airport. Until some other airport in Greater Cleveland has the same or better features than Burke, it will remain the region's FAA-designated reliever airport, regardless of how lightly used it is. And, BTW, Lake in the Hills 3CK Airport is Chicago's reliever. Meigs was not at the time of its closing.

You're not wrong, but I feel like this argument always gets presented as if closing Burke would violate the laws of physics, rather than what it is, a political problem. If Buttigieg (with the President's backing) went to the FAA and said he wanted the paperwork to close Burke within the next three months or someone's getting fired, I'm sure any and all necessary exceptions would be granted and the FAA would find a way to make do with whatever the resulting situation would be. The new reliever would be a downgrade in location, capabilities, or both, but the world would keep turning. 

So if something happened at Burke, let's say methane gases began to emit from the landfill at unsafe levels, and it was unusable for a period of time, Hopkins wouldn't be allowed to operate? 

 

 

Edited August 10, 2024Aug 10 by TBideon

Part of the problem is that people have been fixated on the difficulties of making Cuyahoga County Airport that reliever.  Lorain County Airport would be a better option- there should be room to easily extend the runways to match Burke's length.  And with a little reroute of a couple lightly traveled country roads, it could be made significantly longer if that makes sense.

3 hours ago, TBideon said:

Burke shouldn't go anywhere unless there are committed and signed developers and tenants. No more we-build/hype-it-and-they-will-come, oh-s**t-they-never-came, projects. 

 

Burke serves a purpose - well, presumably, who really knows - and a concrete plan needs to be established before downtown loses another large entity.

 

Also, no Phase 1 through Phase... well, generally, they seem to stop at 1. Those phases have got to be locked in so we aren't left with yet another invisible Neiman Marcus, Civic Vision 2000, Warehouse District Project, real casino, lakefront outlet mall, Tower City Blockchain paradise, Nucleus, Medical Mart, etc, etc, etc. God we've spent so many hours (days? years?) discussing those dead projects that never got beyond Phase 0 or 1. It's exhausting.

 

 

Why it's almost like you have no faith.

 

27 minutes ago, TBideon said:

So if something happened at Burke, let's say methane gases began to emit from the landfill at unsafe levels, and it was unusable for a period of time, Hopkins wouldn't be allowed to operate? 

 

 

Additional question who functions as the reliever Thursday-Monday for the airshow

59 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

I need to copy and paste the following language for every time in this forum this argument comes up....

The FAA requires there to be a publicly owned reliever airport for every major commercial airport in the USA. No airport other than Burke has the runway length, terminal size and tarmac area as Burke. It is Hopkins designated reliever airport. Until some other airport in Greater Cleveland has the same or better features than Burke, it will remain the region's FAA-designated reliever airport, regardless of how lightly used it is. And, BTW, Lake in the Hills 3CK Airport is Chicago's reliever. Meigs was not at the time of its closing.

I just thought it was noteworthy the browns said the hurdle was wasn’t just the FAA, if the FAA is the only true hurdle why mention economic factors as a hurdle.
 

economic factors I’d argue are just as much of a hurdle anywhere this dome ends up

Its still BKL. The airshow can always be suspended. Btw, years ago I used to fly to Allentown PA. They had an annual airshow at ABE with simultaneous airline ops. They simply adjusted the show to accomodate airline scheds. 

12 minutes ago, B767PILOT said:

Its still BKL. The airshow can always be suspended. Btw, years ago I used to fly to Allentown PA. They had an annual airshow at ABE with simultaneous airline ops. They simply adjusted the show to accomodate airline scheds. 

But only 6L is available, so does Burke need to have 2 runways?