1 hour 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 wish people who are so loud about closing Burke actually do some research of why Burke exists and stop comparing it to Meigs airport every time they scream "it's prime real estate!"

Couldn't CAK be designated as a reliever for CLE?

1 hour ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

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

It has two:  26L/4R and 26R/4L

1 hour ago, LibertyBlvd said:

Couldn't CAK be designated as a reliever for CLE?

No..CAK is busy enough to have its own releiver airport

1 hour ago, B767PILOT said:

It has two:  26L/4R and 26R/4L

Ah my mistake didn’t know that counted as two. so is 24L/6R needed? because it seems to be the only runway that would be an issue for a dome

37 minutes ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

Ah my mistake didn’t know that counted as two. so is 24L/6R needed? because it seems to be the only runway that would be an issue for a dome

The fact that it exists is enough to keep it as long as BKL remains open. As you know, runway construction involves years of litigation, environmental impact studies, etc. Removing existing capacity has to be carefully considered because replacing it would be prohibitive if not impossible. Just because at this snapshot in time it would seem that the runway and airport arent needed doesnt mean that in a few years it wont. And as said by those more learned than me:  You cant compare this to Meigs.  

Is BKL the only "reliever" airport for CLE or are there others?

2 hours ago, B767PILOT said:

No..CAK is busy enough to have its own releiver airport

What is it then? The only nearby airport I see listed as a reliever is Medina, which has very short runways, even compared to Cuyahoga County or Lorain. Not to mention Medina is actually closer to CLE than CAK.

 

https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/airports/planning_capacity/npias/current/NPIAS_App_A.xls

 

Meanwhile Cuyahoga County, Lorain, Willoughby are all designated as relievers in addition to Burke. Their runway lengths are small compared to most primary reliever airports I can find, but a few are close (and a few seem to be exaggerating their length relative to what I actually measure in Google maps). Lorain in particular would be very easy to expand to Burke length and become the primary reliever. 

You are talking about expansion of smaller airports. Good luck with that. As i said above, with proposed expansion comes decades of litigation, environmental studies, etc. BKL also has a 24/7 staffed federal tower and is an airport of entry. Plus CATIII on 24R

So what exactly is the purpose of a "reliever" airport? Is is supposed to be capable of handling flights that might be diverted from the main airport?

Just got home from the game. Count me ready for a new location and a new stadium. The traffic patterns with seemingly random blocked streets and no detour signage created chaos. The city acts like it doesn’t want people to come. And the stadium is wearing like a cheaply built home. Tear it down. 

19 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

So what exactly is the purpose of a "reliever" airport? Is is supposed to be capable of handling flights that might be diverted from the main airport?

Reliever airports are more associated with larger hub dominated airports or airports with large O&D passenger numbers like ORD, LAX, etc. Not non-hub airports with less than 10 million passengers.

3 hours ago, B767PILOT said:

The fact that it exists is enough to keep it as long as BKL remains open. As you know, runway construction involves years of litigation, environmental impact studies, etc. Removing existing capacity has to be carefully considered because replacing it would be prohibitive if not impossible. Just because at this snapshot in time it would seem that the runway and airport arent needed doesnt mean that in a few years it wont. And as said by those more learned than me:  You cant compare this to Meigs.  

 

I certainly appreciate your knowledge in this area, but I hope you can at least appreciate that for those of us who aren't frequent fliers or aviation professionals or enthusiasts that "someday maybe it will be useful" is not a very compelling argument for keeping such a large chunk of lakefront away from the public.

3 hours ago, B767PILOT said:

You are talking about expansion of smaller airports. Good luck with that. As i said above, with proposed expansion comes decades of litigation, environmental studies, etc. BKL also has a 24/7 staffed federal tower and is an airport of entry. Plus CATIII on 24R

To be clear, I don't think we need to expand any of the four designated reliever airports within 35 miles of CLE. I think we can stomach the loss of capacity without a significant issue. I'm sure the FAA will disagree, but it's basically their job to disagree. 

 

If the FAA requires upgrading a minor airport, I think it's worth the headache so that we can get rid of Burke, but I'd prefer to remove Burke without upgrading any other reliever airport. If it's truly necessary I'm happy to do it, if it's only necessary to satisfy the FAA then I'm willing to do it. Either way, I'm hoping we start moving through the beaurocracy as soon as possible. 

On 8/9/2024 at 11:39 AM, Ethan said:

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

Not sure I completely agree with this. A few bars on W. 6th would struggle but I think the point with nfl teams only having 8 (9?) home games is that the impact on bars and restaurants isn’t all it’s made out to be.

2 hours ago, mu2010 said:

Not sure I completely agree with this. A few bars on W. 6th would struggle but I think the point with nfl teams only having 8 (9?) home games is that the impact on bars and restaurants isn’t all it’s made out to be.

 

I worked in Downtown restaurants and bars for over a decade, and can tell you that those home games are HUGE days for many, but not all of the bars Downtown.  One bar I worked at made over $30k per gameday.  Another made almost nothing- it wasn't even worth being open.  You can includes preseason to, so it's 10 games/year.  The weekend of the games is also often big, depending who the visiting team is. The bar would be packed all weekend for a Steelers or Bills game, not so much for 49'ers or Chargers.  It's not just proximity- Oakland Raiders fans would pack the joint as well.  Not sure about Las Vegas Raiders "fans"!

 

Do those numbers make or break any of those bars, I can't say for sure.  But you do the math above, and it is a substantial chunk of change.

If the lakefront is developed with attractions that bring in people year-round, would that be better than a stadium that brings in people about a dozen time a year?

4 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

If the lakefront is developed with attractions that bring in people year-round, would that be better than a stadium that brings in people about a dozen time a year?

Why not both?

I'm gonna keep beating the drum for a lakefront amphitheater with about 15k seats. Outdoors means it could really only operate March to October probably, but if the summer months fit in 2 or 3 well-attended concerts per week, this could potentially match the 700k crowd per year that football games bring in, and you dont need all the parking lots for tailgating. Replace the stadium with an apartment tower or two with ground floor retail and some of the pre-existing development ideas that would need to shift a little for the theater.

 

I added an overlay of Jones Beach for scale.

 

And then a really really bad photoshop of what this would look like without the stadium, using the development plan. They could position the beach they want to build right on the west side of the theater so you could have a view into it, as an additional ticketing options for shows. Only thing it loses is the "sun deck" but adds a ton of space in the middle that I just copy pasted buildings into to hide the empty stadium rendering. Heck, stick a big ferris wheel in the middle or something.

 

 

 

Edited August 11, 2024Aug 11 by daybreaker

On 8/9/2024 at 2:26 PM, LibertyBlvd said:

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

That's just city zoning though, not the FAA.  Anyone with a few bucks to put in a councilpersons pocket can get zoning changed....

13 minutes ago, daybreaker said:

I'm gonna keep beating the drum for a lakefront amphitheater with about 15k seats. Outdoors means it could really only operate March to October probably, but if the summer months fit in 2 or 3 well-attended concerts per week, this could potentially match the 700k crowd per year that football games bring in, and you dont need all the parking lots for tailgating. Replace the stadium with an apartment tower or two with ground floor retail and some of the pre-existing development ideas that would need to shift a little for the theater.

 

I added an overlay of Jones Beach for scale.

 

And then a really really bad photoshop of what this would look like without the stadium, using the development plan. They could position the beach they want to build right on the west side of the theater so you could have a view into it, as an additional ticketing options for shows. Only thing it loses is the "sun deck" but adds a ton of space in the middle that I just copy pasted buildings into to hide the empty stadium rendering. Heck, stick a big ferris wheel in the middle or something.

 

 

 

If there's presumably going to be a big hole in the ground where the stadium is, I also thought about an amphitheater, but where the actual stadium bowl currently sits.

1 hour ago, LibertyBlvd said:

If the lakefront is developed with attractions that bring in people year-round, would that be better than a stadium that brings in people about a dozen time a year?

 

Possibly, depending on the scale and nature of the attraction and how many new restaurants/bars are developed along with it on the waterfront.  We already have the RRHOF and GLSC down there, so its not like we don't have other waterfront attractions.

County pushing back on Brook Park proposal. Good. 

 

5 hours ago, mu2010 said:

Not sure I completely agree with this. A few bars on W. 6th would struggle but I think the point with nfl teams only having 8 (9?) home games is that the impact on bars and restaurants isn’t all it’s made out to be.

Except the whole plan for this thing is to make it a year round event space for concerts and other events like Final Fours, with it's own mini downtown of hotels and bars. That is what will kill downtown 

11 minutes ago, AsDustinFoxWouldSay said:

Except the whole plan for this thing is to make it a year round event space for concerts and other events like Final Fours, with it's own mini downtown of hotels and bars. That is what will kill downtown 

yeah, that is an important point which I was overlooking.

If it brings in acts that wouldn't otherwise come, downtown isn't harmed in any way. If it does cannibalize events that would have gone downtown, maybe the Q and Wolstein arena lose some business. 

 

And since this won't be a self-contained universe because Jimmyland sure as s**t isn't happening beyond a stadium - if that is actually built - Cleveland ancillary businesses will still see benefits from the tourists. They gotta eat and stay somewhere, and Brookpark stripclubs' menus are limited. 

3 hours ago, daybreaker said:

I'm gonna keep beating the drum for a lakefront amphitheater with about 15k seats. Outdoors means it could really only operate March to October probably, but if the summer months fit in 2 or 3 well-attended concerts per week, this could potentially match the 700k crowd per year that football games bring in, and you dont need all the parking lots for tailgating. Replace the stadium with an apartment tower or two with ground floor retail and some of the pre-existing development ideas that would need to shift a little for the theater.

 

I added an overlay of Jones Beach for scale.

 

And then a really really bad photoshop of what this would look like without the stadium, using the development plan. They could position the beach they want to build right on the west side of the theater so you could have a view into it, as an additional ticketing options for shows. Only thing it loses is the "sun deck" but adds a ton of space in the middle that I just copy pasted buildings into to hide the empty stadium rendering. Heck, stick a big ferris wheel in the middle or something.

 

 

 

Isn't this just Nautica...? 

On 8/7/2024 at 3:11 PM, Ethan said:

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. 

So with the County coming out against Brook Park, I reiterate my earlier question, what if they can't get the public funds, is Brook Park still a done deal? 

53 minutes ago, Ethan said:

So with the County coming out against Brook Park, I reiterate my earlier question, what if they can't get the public funds, is Brook Park still a done deal? 

My guess would be no and they pivot to the post office site?

I'm wondering if this is all just a (bad faith) effort by the Haslams to squeeze as many public dollars from all possible sources as they can, only to eventually privately fund a dome and/or accept a significantly smaller figure than $1.2B.  

 

County officials urge Haslams to keep Browns downtown
By Ken Prendergast / August 11, 2024

 

Two Cuyahoga County leaders sent a letter today to Cleveland Browns owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam urging the football team to keep playing at the stadium on the Downtown Cleveland lakefront rather than build a new domed stadium in suburban Brook Park. County Executive Chris Ronayne and Cuyahoga County Council President Pernel Jones Jr. said the Haslams’ Brook Park plan “does not make fiscal sense.”

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2024/08/11/county-officials-urge-haslams-to-keep-browns-downtown/

1 hour ago, Ethan said:

Isn't this just Nautica...? 

+10,000 seats. 

 

It wouldn't be able to survive in the same market as Blossom.   The orchestra has deep pockets and could afford to discount the new place out of business. 

21 hours ago, B767PILOT said:

You are talking about expansion of smaller airports. Good luck with that. As i said above, with proposed expansion comes decades of litigation, environmental studies, etc. BKL also has a 24/7 staffed federal tower and is an airport of entry. Plus CATIII on 24R

 

I don't dispute that BKK is the best qualified/equipped reliever airport in NE Ohio. But if the 3801' x 75' runway, uncontrolled Lake in the Hills (3CK) can be the designated reliever for the combined 95 million passengers and 956,000 operations of O'Hare and Midway (2023 numbers), I think Cuyahoga County Airport would fit the bill as Hopkins's reliever just fine.

12 minutes ago, brtshrcegr said:

 

I don't dispute that BKK is the best qualified/equipped reliever airport in NE Ohio. But if the 3801' x 75' runway, uncontrolled Lake in the Hills (3CK) can be the designated reliever for the combined 95 million passengers and 956,000 operations of O'Hare and Midway (2023 numbers), I think Cuyahoga County Airport would fit the bill as Hopkins's reliever just fine.

Yes, I find this odd. I'm surprised DuPage County or even Schaumberg airport would not be the reliever in Chicagoland. LitH Airport seems more like the Geauga or Ashtabula County airports. On the surface it appears these designations are arbitrary and/or political.

No city and no county cash. Guinness book of records beer sales needed to pay those Brook Park bonds and if they default who cares, it's someone else's money!

2 hours ago, Ethan said:

Isn't this just Nautica...? 

 

Nautica is only 5k where as what I'd like to see it modeled after (Jones Beach) is 15k, and there's a big difference with a completely open theater with just the open water behind it, in terms of ambiance. Maybe an open theater wouldnt work weather-wise, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

50 minutes ago, brtshrcegr said:

 

I don't dispute that BKK is the best qualified/equipped reliever airport in NE Ohio. But if the 3801' x 75' runway, uncontrolled Lake in the Hills (3CK) can be the designated reliever for the combined 95 million passengers and 956,000 operations of O'Hare and Midway (2023 numbers), I think Cuyahoga County Airport would fit the bill as Hopkins's reliever just fine.

Chicago has several.   Executive is the main reliever, i believe.  

Insiders say the stadium is “decaying rapidly.” What does that mean? If it is taken down to the studs in a $1B renovation, it still won’t last 30 years?

 

The public needs to understand what this means before public money is spent in either location. 

21 minutes ago, coneflower said:

Insiders say the stadium is “decaying rapidly.” What does that mean? If it is taken down to the studs in a $1B renovation, it still won’t last 30 years?

 

The public needs to understand what this means before public money is spent in either location. 

 

$1 billion won't be enough to take it down to the steel supports. I'm told that wouldn't be enough. 

24 minutes ago, coneflower said:

Insiders say the stadium is “decaying rapidly.” What does that mean? If it is taken down to the studs in a $1B renovation, it still won’t last 30 years?

 

The public needs to understand what this means before public money is spent in either location. 

Right. I imagine some of the cosmetic items and interior finishes are fading, but the overall structure is probably in good condition, save for a few areas. But given what's been released to your point, we don't know either way.

1 hour ago, coneflower said:

Insiders say the stadium is “decaying rapidly.” What does that mean? If it is taken down to the studs in a $1B renovation, it still won’t last 30 years?

 

The public needs to understand what this means before public money is spent in either location. 

"Insiders" may also be seeking to persuade rather than inform with this information. The City funded audit found a need for ~100 million in repairs, that's a huge delta from the Haslams renovation ask. 

Added a quote from the Haslams for the NEOtrans article, above. 

3 hours ago, KJP said:

$1 billion won't be enough to take it down to the steel supports. I'm told that wouldn't be enough. 

But that is my point. The Haslams are beating around the bush with the facts and it’s counter-productive for their cause. 
 

If they believe the stadium is a money pit that is not worth fixing, they need to say so and show evidence. They may argue $1B gets us only 15 years. But how long would a new stadium itself last—30 years before whoever owns the team wants another new stadium? Or tries to move? Is twice as much time worth almost 3X construction plus competing with public and private investments downtown, as the county letter mentions? It’s worth debating but right now the public doesn’t have that info. 

6 hours ago, brtshrcegr said:

 

I don't dispute that BKK is the best qualified/equipped reliever airport in NE Ohio. But if the 3801' x 75' runway, uncontrolled Lake in the Hills (3CK) can be the designated reliever for the combined 95 million passengers and 956,000 operations of O'Hare and Midway (2023 numbers), I think Cuyahoga County Airport would fit the bill as Hopkins's reliever just fine.

 

For comparison, Cuyahoga County Airport's (CGF) runway is 5502' x 100', and the airport is controlled.

 

Even Lost Nation (LNN) in Willoughby (which is uncontrolled) has larger runways...one which is 5028' x 100' and another which is 4272' x 100'.

 

Lorain County's airport also has a decently sized runway.

 

Ashtabula County's airport is a little far out of Cleveland to be a reliever, but it is "FAA designated ARC C-II design standard, permitted to serve medium-sized corporate jet aircraft", and is known as Northeast Ohio Regional Airport.

 

None of these individually can compare with BKL's parallel runways (6L and 6R), which are 150' wide and can handle large jets.  However, I don't know that we need all of that capacity in a reliever airport.

 

CLE is a Class B airport.  CAK is a Class C airport.  The Class D airports in NEO are BKL, CGF, and YNG.

Edited August 12, 2024Aug 12 by jam40jeff

23 minutes ago, coneflower said:

But that is my point. The Haslams are beating around the bush with the facts and it’s counter-productive for their cause. 
 

If they believe the stadium is a money pit that is not worth fixing, they need to say so and show evidence. They may argue $1B gets us only 15 years. But how long would a new stadium itself last—30 years before whoever owns the team wants another new stadium? Or tries to move? Is twice as much time worth almost 3X construction plus competing with public and private investments downtown, as the county letter mentions? It’s worth debating but right now the public doesn’t have that info. 

My guess is if the studies they have done showed any bit of evidence that would help them persuade people towards the Brookpark proposal instead of the Lakefront they would have showed them already.

21 hours ago, X said:

 

I worked in Downtown restaurants and bars for over a decade, and can tell you that those home games are HUGE days for many, but not all of the bars Downtown.  One bar I worked at made over $30k per gameday.  Another made almost nothing- it wasn't even worth being open.  You can includes preseason to, so it's 10 games/year.  The weekend of the games is also often big, depending who the visiting team is. The bar would be packed all weekend for a Steelers or Bills game, not so much for 49'ers or Chargers.  It's not just proximity- Oakland Raiders fans would pack the joint as well.  Not sure about Las Vegas Raiders "fans"!

 

Do those numbers make or break any of those bars, I can't say for sure.  But you do the math above, and it is a substantial chunk of change.

 

Which directly addresses a less discussed point:  Haslam doesn't just want the parking money he wants that money too.  They've already been trying to cut into the bar and tailgate business with their lame faux official "tailgate".   

3 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

Which directly addresses a less discussed point:  Haslam doesn't just want the parking money he wants that money too.  They've already been trying to cut into the bar and tailgate business with their lame faux official "tailgate".   

 

Lol not to defend the Haslams, but the official tailgate started after a 7 year old kid got clotheslined in the Muni lot and ended up watching the game from Metro. The Browns decided to open a more "controllable" tailgate where people with kids could go and not have to worry about their child witnessing drunken coitus in the back of an F-150. 

18 hours ago, AsDustinFoxWouldSay said:

Except the whole plan for this thing is to make it a year round event space for concerts and other events like Final Fours, with it's own mini downtown of hotels and bars. That is what will kill downtown 

 

Anyone else here live on the lakeshore east of where it dips south at Edgewater?   Or for that matter, has tailgated at Muni in late November or December?

Conditions on the shore during the winter months all but preclude year round outdoor activities on any kind of large scale.

 

 

2 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

 

Lol not to defend the Haslams, but the official tailgate started after a 7 year old kid got clotheslined in the Muni lot and ended up watching the game from Metro. The Browns decided to open a more "controllable" tailgate where people with kids could go and not have to worry about their child witnessing drunken coitus in the back of an F-150. 

 

The people at the downtown bars have a different view.   I've seen it expressed numerous times on X and other places.  They want to charge their inflated prices and even more cheesily, have advertiser booths set up.

 

I think my main beef is calling it a "tailgate".   I'm a purist, if you are not set up at a vehicle someone brought there it is not a "tailgate" it is a picnic.