The main issue is that the walkable hub that the Brown's stadium is nothing more than a location for isolated events and will never be a neighborhood with unique shops and amenities that a European city model provides. This will be more Crocker Park than anything.  This is a glorified development that supports only the stadium's needs and benefits.  I don't see people flocking to Brook Park if nothing is planned to happen inside the stadium that given day.  I personally do not see myself wanting to eat or do anything outside of an indoor facility with the noise of air traffic coming from Hopkins

Edited August 20, 2024Aug 20 by dave2017

29 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

This is an important part of my point. If the plan were to build the stadium out in Chardon or Ravenna, I would be dead set against that. As I've expressed repeatedly, I think that the lakefront (specifically where Burke is now) *is* the best overall location for the stadium. But Brook Park is an inner ring suburb. There is literally a heavy rail line that goes to the site. I would think red line usage will increase if the stadium moves to Brook Park. There are a lot of people who live downtown and would love to take the rapid right to the stadium.

 

People are commenting that Brook Park isn't very walkable, and I agree it's not! But how will that ever change unless new development happens in Brook Park? Similarly, of course Germany has better transit than the U.S. I think the different style of urban design is a primary reason for that fact! Isn't the whole point of transit-oriented development that you're focusing on various hubs that are connected by public transit? That's exactly what the Brook Park location is. Public transit works well if you have a bunch of walkable hubs that people can take transit to and from (like European cities). It works less well if you one dense central area that progressively becomes more diffuse as you get farther from the center (like most American cities).

 

I'm as anxious as anyone is to grow the region, but I don't think you do that telling people and businesses exactly where and how to relocate into your region. If we adopt an attitude of "you can invest your money here, but it better be downtown!" that is going to result in less (not more) total investment in the region.

No public transit works best in a single, large, densely populated central city. 

1 minute ago, dave2017 said:

The main issue is that the walkable hub that the Brown's stadium is nothing more than a location for isolated events and will never be a neighborhood with. unique shops and amenities.  This is a glorified development that supports only the stadium's needs and benefits.  I don't see people flocking to Brook Park if nothing is planned to happen inside the stadium that given day.  I personally do not see myself wanting to eat or do anything outside of an indoor facility with the noise of air traffic coming from Hopkins

I have been to Truist Park, home of the Atlanta Braves, a couple of times on days in July when there wasnt a baseball game and it wasnt busy at all. This park is located abpuot 12 miles outisde of dowtown Atlanta.

13 minutes ago, dave2017 said:

The main issue is that the walkable hub that the Brown's stadium is nothing more than a location for isolated events and will never be a neighborhood with unique shops and amenities that a European city model provides. This will be more Crocker Park than anything.  This is a glorified development that supports only the stadium's needs and benefits.  I

 

I'm optimistic the development could be better than what you're describing. But if you're right, isn't that an argument *against* putting the development on irreplaceable lakefront land? By guiding every new project into downtown, you also put every failure in downtown.

 

Again, I'm not debating that downtown would be a great place for the stadium. But there are valid, urban-centric reasons that Brook Park is a reasonable alternative.

1 hour ago, LlamaLawyer said:

This is an important part of my point. If the plan were to build the stadium out in Chardon or Ravenna, I would be dead set against that. As I've expressed repeatedly, I think that the lakefront (specifically where Burke is now) *is* the best overall location for the stadium. But Brook Park is an inner ring suburb. There is literally a heavy rail line that goes to the site. I would think red line usage will increase if the stadium moves to Brook Park. There are a lot of people who live downtown and would love to take the rapid right to the stadium.

 

People are commenting that Brook Park isn't very walkable, and I agree it's not! But how will that ever change unless new development happens in Brook Park? Similarly, of course Germany has better transit than the U.S. I think the different style of urban design is a primary reason for that fact! Isn't the whole point of transit-oriented development that you're focusing on various hubs that are connected by public transit? That's exactly what the Brook Park location is. Public transit works well if you have a bunch of walkable hubs that people can take transit to and from (like European cities). It works less well if you one dense central area that progressively becomes more diffuse as you get farther from the center (like most American cities).

 

I'm as anxious as anyone is to grow the region, but I don't think you do that telling people and businesses exactly where and how to relocate into your region. If we adopt an attitude of "you can invest your money here, but it better be downtown!" that is going to result in less (not more) total investment in the region.

I understand your point, and I'm sympathetic to it, but for the money problem. If the public contribution wasn't expected to increase for a new stadium at Brook Park I'd probably prefer the Browns moving to Brook Park. A football stadium isn't a good use of lakefront land, and if we could put that land to other uses that would be better, but it isn't an even exchange.

 

Even if we ignore the half of the stadium construction costs the Haslams expect the taxpayers to pick up, there will likely be hundreds of million in infrastructure upgrades to accommodate a large venue at the Brook Park location. Downtown is already built to accommodate events like this, that's efficiency and savings. Downtown has optimal transit access, and plenty of parking garages, hotels, restaurants, and other supporting infrastructure that is a benefit to and benefits from a stadium. All of that would have to be built at Brook Park, and will only maybe be sustainable outside of game days.

 

Given where they plan to place the mixed use district from early renderings, I'm not convinced they know what will make this development successful. That being proximity to the airport and redline, not the stadium. In theory this could end up being like the Van Taken district +stadium, in which case it really could be a benefit to the region at large, but as of yet, I've seen very little to suggest that is what we'll actually get. 

 

If the Browns want to go alone and risk their own money building at Brook Park, great! But if it's going to be taxpayer money, I think the concern is justified. We aught to be concerned about the likely payback of this investment, as well as how it will impact previous public investments, many of which have been downtown, and have started to bare fruit. Basically it's not that Brook Park is necessarily a bad idea, it's just a risky bet, and one that I don't think makes sense for responsible stewards of public funds. 

27 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

 

I'm optimistic the development could be better than what you're describing. But if you're right, isn't that an argument *against* putting the development on irreplaceable lakefront land? By guiding every new project into downtown, you also put every failure in downtown.

 

Again, I'm not debating that downtown would be a great place for the stadium. But there are valid, urban-centric reasons that Brook Park is a reasonable alternative.

I prefer the lakefront site for the following reasons.

1. The momentum to develop the surroundings of the lakefront stadium are stronger with the city putting in all the upgrades. The stadium redevelopment lends a continued reason to build all the plans that have been put into development.

2. If the city remains owners of the stadium why can it not be designed to also be home to a soccer team to activate the stadium for more events? Heck can't it also be transformed into other field sporting events including tennis?  Make it open to local high school and university teams as well.

3. The Haslam's can still invest outside of the stadium if they negotiate. I personally do not see the need for an enclosed stadium that die hard Browns' fans would insist to continue supporting them.

 

Any reasonable choice that The Haslam's have spun for Brook Park  outside of the actual stadium already exists downtown. They want to make one believe all traffic/parking/stadium faults will disappear once moved.  The argument should be made on how well that Colisuem worked in Springfield for everyone.  All new developments over promise and underdeliver .

7 hours ago, Ethan said:

 

I think the single best case scenario for Cleveland would be a minimal renovation at the current location combined with a medium length (~10-15 years) lease. During that time a new downtown (or downtown adjacent) stadium location would be sought and procured.  

I like this approach, although I think a renovated stadium would likely stay in place longer (maybe 20-25yrs). Regardless, it's an opportunity to leverage development of the land north of the stadium along with the other ancillary improvements. Then, when the time comes, the stadium can go elsewhere and that void could be filled in with other types of development. Maybe that's when the Burke land comes into play.

 

I really don't mind the Brook Park site and having a football stadium on the lakefront does suck, but I think this should be strategic given the hand we're playing with. In an ideal world we could just remove the stadium now and then get the site developed with something more appropriate. However, I'm not very confident that would happen in a reasonable timeframe given the underdeveloped areas we have all over downtown and adjacent areas. If Cleveland were booming like say Austin or Nashville my take would be different, and I'd say go ahead a move it out to the Brook Park site. 

2 hours ago, dski44 said:

I have been to Truist Park, home of the Atlanta Braves, a couple of times on days in July when there wasnt a baseball game and it wasnt busy at all. This park is located abpuot 12 miles outisde of dowtown Atlanta.

Atlanta may be the strangest large city. The Downtown area is awful but Midtown is what Downtown should be. The highways are packed but tthe street traffic is very light it is a very backwards city. 

8 hours ago, PlanCleveland said:

We already have a set up similar to this with Cleveland, Akron, Canton, Lorain, Parma, Youngstown, and the other numerous 40-55k cities in NEO. The problem is we are only connected with highways that allow people to fly past each of them. 

 

This area of Germany has sooooo many quality transit options that all of these cities have basically become one. Even in the smaller towns in that region, car ownership isn't really necessary, or more than one car per family, because they can get anywhere they need without one. 

 

We just have disconnected islands of cities only a few miles apart from each other fighting for the same scraps. Which then makes each worse. Imagine the growth this region could see if we connected all of our population centers like that area of Germany. 

 

If NEO was a booming region, I don't think a move to Brook Park would be that much of an issue. Because there would be money and population growth to quickly fill in the current stadium site, and money available for Brook Park. But it is an issue because it's spreading our already limited resources out even more, while ESSENtially(see what I did there?) creating a community for a small and wealthier portion of the population. 

"If NEO was a booming region, I don't think a move to Brook Park would be that much of an issue. Because there would be money and population growth to quickly fill in the current stadium site, and money available for Brook Park. But it is an issue because it's spreading our already limited resources out even more, while ESSENtially(see what I did there?) creating a community for a small and wealthier portion of the population. "

 

THIS is the exact point that not enough people are thinking about or they are just choosing to ignore when it comes to this Brook Park site. Especially when proponents keep talking about developing retail, hotels, housing, oh and getting year round events at the Brook Park site when that would literally kill downtown even further. 

I can't understand how Brookpark can possibly service the stadium with Police and Fire and any other City services that go into supporting this.  I thing that's the carrot that Cleveland is dangling, or not dangling.  Essentially telling the Haslams, go ahead, try it.  We'll sit back and watch.  Good luck.  Completely an anti-regionalism thought process, but I presume that's what they're doing.

 

P.S.  I haven't been following this conversation much, so you guys may have already covered this 🤐🤪

Edited August 21, 2024Aug 21 by Jenny

The stadium is fine where it is. There’s SOOOO much available land around it to develop. Not to mention all the parking lots lining the river.
 

That we suddenly NEED that specific plot of land to spur lakefront development is beyond ridiculous. Absolute nonsense. 

1 hour ago, Jenny said:

P.S.  I haven't been following this conversation much, ...🤐🤪

A wise choice, indeed!

4 hours ago, Jenny said:

I can't understand how Brookpark can possibly service the stadium with Police and Fire and any other City services that go into supporting this.  I thing that's the carrot that Cleveland is dangling, or not dangling.  Essentially telling the Haslams, go ahead, try it.  We'll sit back and watch.  Good luck.  Completely an anti-regionalism thought process, but I presume that's what they're doing.

 

P.S.  I haven't been following this conversation much, so you guys may have already covered this 🤐🤪

 

All the cops are paid by the Browns on game day.   It would likely end up being county Sheriff deputies, or even other city PD's working on the side. 

 

Where do Browns fans want their team to play? What one Cleveland City Council member’s survey says

by Nick Castele

August 21, 2024

 

 

City Council Member Kris Harsh, a season ticket holder fresh off a fact-finding mission at the Browns’ two preseason home games, has some data points to offer on that question. According to Harsh, nearly 60% of fans he surveyed at the games want to stay on the lake. 

 

Pen and reporter’s notepad in hand, Harsh hoofed outside and inside the stadium, asking fans, “Stay here, or go to Brook Park?” 

 

He didn’t just quiz a handful of people in line for hot dogs. He recorded 3,158 responses with help from Council Member Danny Kelly, he said. The results, according to Harsh: 1,889, or 59.8%, voted to stay; 1,160, or 36.7%, voted to move to Brook Park. Another 109 said they didn’t care.

 

https://signalcleveland.org/where-do-browns-fans-want-their-team-to-play-what-one-cleveland-city-council-members-survey-says/

16 hours ago, bumsquare said:

No public transit works best in a single, large, densely populated central city. 

 

No, public transit works best where every rail station or busy bus intersection is a dense node of mixed uses. Every station or bus hub is it's own little downtown. Too often, Americans cities are downtowns with vertical office parks surrounded by parking lots and blighted streetcar-era neighborhoods and then car-dependent suburbs. 

 

A Brook Park mixed-use transit node next to the airport would be significantly more attractive and useful than just an auto plant and the scars of two former auto plants. But I don't understand why the Haslams aren't interested in a direct pedestrian connection between the airport and their proposed development. Seems to be a missed opportunity.

13 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

No, public transit works best where every rail station or busy bus intersection is a dense node of mixed uses.

That’s a city. Brookpark isn’t Times Square or Queens. The example given was the regional rail network in Germany. That’s not the same as a subway or high capacity light rail. The New York subway, Paris Metro, Milan Metro, etc, etc, etc are all efficient because they serve incredibly dense center cities. Not sure why you guys are twisting yourselves in knots to make Brookpark, the poster child of postwar sprawl, into the 18th Arrondissement. 

12 hours ago, marty15 said:

The stadium is fine where it is. There’s SOOOO much available land around it to develop. Not to mention all the parking lots lining the river.
 

That we suddenly NEED that specific plot of land to spur lakefront development is beyond ridiculous. Absolute nonsense. 

100%. Building in Brook Park to open up the lakefront is a Haslam Sports Group talking point. The lakefront master plan shows there's still an enormous amount that can be achieved on the water with the stadium there. I've yet to hear a single example of how moving the stadium to Brook Park benefits the city of Cleveland.

Edited August 21, 2024Aug 21 by MostlyThere14

1 hour ago, KJP said:

A Brook Park mixed-use transit node next to the airport would be significantly more attractive and useful than just an auto plant and the scars of two former auto plants. But I don't understand why the Haslams aren't interested in a direct pedestrian connection between the airport and their proposed development. Seems to be a missed opportunity.

 

We assume the Haslams will embrace TOD because it is a no-brainer. But I think it's just as likely a new stadium rapid stop would only operate on game days.

2 minutes ago, coneflower said:

 

We assume the Haslams will embrace TOD because it is a no-brainer. But I think it's just as likely a new stadium rapid stop would only operate on game days.

The Haslams main desire for Brookpark is parking revenue. Any TOD would be counter to their whole business plan. There won’t be any TOD development unless absolutely forced to. 

I can honestly see both sides of the argument as far as the location of the stadium. Financing is another story. But I can tell you this, I don’t trust the Haslams one bit.

55 minutes ago, bumsquare said:

That’s a city. Brookpark isn’t Times Square or Queens. The example given was the regional rail network in Germany. That’s not the same as a subway or high capacity light rail. The New York subway, Paris Metro, Milan Metro, etc, etc, etc are all efficient because they serve incredibly dense center cities. Not sure why you guys are twisting yourselves in knots to make Brookpark, the poster child of postwar sprawl, into the 18th Arrondissement. 

 

What was Queens before the subway was built? Answer:

 

 

 

Point is, we can develop areas how we see fit, when someone with money is willing to invest. Having 20,000 parking spaces in downtown for the stadium is a void that needs to be filled along with the facility that demands its presence of that parking 10 days a year.

 

If that's a Haslam talking point, then they're greater urbanists for what we're giving them credit. I don't expect the city to come up with an alternative analysis for the stadium/parking land until after the Browns are gone. The city simply is not going to do that before they leave.

So based on your photo and assessment of Queens before the subway means that BrookPark will allow itself to be annexed into the city of Cleveland once it steals our NFL team? Got it. And to respond to anyone thinking that whenever I say the team should stay in Cleveland thinking I mean all investment has to be “downtown” is missing the point just a little bit. I live in Gordon Square and I see so many cool new businesses that could end up in my neighborhood (or any other number of CLE neighborhoods with empty storefronts in walkable places) go to Lakewood or Van Aiken thinking that they are actually in the city. It doesn’t matter which suburb these places go to, it still takes potential investment away from the city, which for retail or restaurants is fine I guess, but this is a professional football team that would not be in the region at all if BrookPark was the economic and population center. They are the Cleveland Browns, and they exist because of the city. Even if they want to move out of downtown, there are more than enough empty parcels within city limits that could accommodate the things that the Haslams want. Also, as was stated earlier, if a version of Cracker Park gets built around the venue then that legitimately prevents people from ever having to step foot in the city when coming into town to see a game which would be yet another contributing factor to the overall stagnation of the entire area. It doesn’t matter how “walkable” we make a portion of BrookPark, the outcome as far as regional health is still the same. I am all for better utilization of the lakefront, but I also think that we could think a bit more creatively when it comes to where the stadium could go as opposed to just resigning ourselves to letting yet another Cleveland institution move to the burbs. 

36 minutes ago, Boaty McBoatface said:

So based on your photo and assessment of Queens before the subway means that BrookPark will allow itself to be annexed into the city of Cleveland once it steals our NFL team? Got it. 

 

He didn't say anything like this, where are you getting it from?  He said that the form of the development in Brook Park is a choice we get to make.  He also said there's a higher and better urban use for all the parking downtown necessitated by the stadium.  

Edited August 21, 2024Aug 21 by ryanfrazier

Sorry. I was pointing out that using Queens as an example is a bit off the mark because Queens is a part of NYC and not a separate city altogether. So any of the investment and development taking place in Queens is a benefit to the city as a whole as opposed to a developing say Paramus or Yonkers. Apologies for not being clear haha. 

For me, the fundamental issue is what helps the city of Cleveland more.  I have gone from a lifelong fan of the Browns to what can best be described as passive dislike over the last decade, but I also won't deny that having an NFL franchise is on balance probably good for the city/region.  But the question then becomes how much of a benefit.  There are cultural and PR-based benefits (though for a while, I'd argue the Browns hurt the region's reputation in that regard, but I digress), and there are monetary benefits.

 

From a monetary perspective, the Browns do little-if-anything to help the city.  If that was all this was about, I'd say let them go to Brookpark.  But, as has been stated elsewhere, they are not talking about just moving the team to a nearby suburb.  They also want to siphon off a huge amount of community resources and dollars and events, etc.  This changes the dynamic of having a team that offers a slight benefit to the region into being a net drain.  Regardless of the proposed developments around the stadium, they are pitching this as a way to get concerts and other events.  From where will these events come?  There are few events that draw crowds of the size that warrant an NFL arena.  Having one Taylor Swift/Rolling Stones event per year is not enough to justify this.  Which means many of the events will be smaller, ones that would otherwise likely be coming to Cleveland already and playing at the Fieldhouse, the Wolstein Center, or elsewhere.  This is what I am against.

 

The Haslams want to drain as much as they can from the region, and are not concerned with how it affects anyone outside of themselves.  I remain incredibly skeptical of everything they say, as they've never shown themselves to be forthcoming or honest before (see the Flying J fiasco).  So, when I hear people talk about how bad of shape the stadium is in, I ask where that is coming from.  It's coming from a report the Haslams paid to create.  Maybe it's true, but it sounds to me like those old reports the tobacco industry would put out about the benefits of smoking.

 

The lakefront should be developed.  It CAN be developed with a stadium there.  It can also be developed WITHOUT one there.  The question is, what is better for the city.  The way I see it, the Browns bring little monetary benefit, once we account for everything, but they're not the potential net drain on the region they'd become by moving to Brookpark, siphoning huge amounts of tax dollars that could be better spent elsewhere and poaching events that would otherwise happen in the world-class facilities we already have.  I don't care about the fan experience, I don't care about gameday traffic, and I honestly don't care if the Haslams get rich if they do so with developments that actually happen downtown/help the city (which could happen with the current stadium and is absurdly unlikely if they move to Brookpark).

 

What is good for the future of Cleveland?  At the end of the day, that is what matters.

Sorry for the rant.

15 minutes ago, Chris314 said:

 

The Haslams want to drain as much as they can from the region, and are not concerned with how it affects anyone outside of themselves.  I remain incredibly skeptical of everything they say, as they've never shown themselves to be forthcoming or honest before (see the Flying J fiasco).  So, when I hear people talk about how bad of shape the stadium is in, I ask where that is coming from.  It's coming from a report the Haslams paid to create.  Maybe it's true, but it sounds to me like those old reports the tobacco industry would put out about the benefits of smoking.

 

The lakefront should be developed.  It CAN be developed with a stadium there.  It can also be developed WITHOUT one there.  The question is, what is better for the city.  The way I see it, the Browns bring little monetary benefit, once we account for everything, but they're not the potential net drain on the region they'd become by moving to Brookpark, siphoning huge amounts of tax dollars that could be better spent elsewhere and poaching events that would otherwise happen in the world-class facilities we already have.  I don't care about the fan experience, I don't care about gameday traffic, and I honestly don't care if the Haslams get rich if they do so with developments that actually happen downtown/help the city (which could happen with the current stadium and is absurdly unlikely if they move to Brookpark).

 

What is good for the future of Cleveland?  At the end of the day, that is what matters.

Sorry for the rant.

That’s it, delete the rest of the thread, this guy nailed it. Couldn’t possibly agree more, on every single point. 

1 hour ago, Boaty McBoatface said:

So based on your photo and assessment of Queens before the subway means that BrookPark will allow itself to be annexed into the city of Cleveland once it steals our NFL team? Got it. And to respond to anyone thinking that whenever I say the team should stay in Cleveland thinking I mean all investment has to be “downtown” is missing the point just a little bit. I live in Gordon Square and I see so many cool new businesses that could end up in my neighborhood (or any other number of CLE neighborhoods with empty storefronts in walkable places) go to Lakewood or Van Aiken thinking that they are actually in the city. It doesn’t matter which suburb these places go to, it still takes potential investment away from the city, which for retail or restaurants is fine I guess, but this is a professional football team that would not be in the region at all if BrookPark was the economic and population center. They are the Cleveland Browns, and they exist because of the city. Even if they want to move out of downtown, there are more than enough empty parcels within city limits that could accommodate the things that the Haslams want. Also, as was stated earlier, if a version of Cracker Park gets built around the venue then that legitimately prevents people from ever having to step foot in the city when coming into town to see a game which would be yet another contributing factor to the overall stagnation of the entire area. It doesn’t matter how “walkable” we make a portion of BrookPark, the outcome as far as regional health is still the same. I am all for better utilization of the lakefront, but I also think that we could think a bit more creatively when it comes to where the stadium could go as opposed to just resigning ourselves to letting yet another Cleveland institution move to the burbs. 

 

It's not our NFL team. Not sure what to say about the rest of your out-of-proportion kneejerk reaction to my limited comment except: have a nice day.

20 hours ago, Ethan said:

I understand your point, and I'm sympathetic to it, but for the money problem. If the public contribution wasn't expected to increase for a new stadium at Brook Park I'd probably prefer the Browns moving to Brook Park. A football stadium isn't a good use of lakefront land, and if we could put that land to other uses that would be better, but it isn't an even exchange.

 

Even if we ignore the half of the stadium construction costs the Haslams expect the taxpayers to pick up, there will likely be hundreds of million in infrastructure upgrades to accommodate a large venue at the Brook Park location. Downtown is already built to accommodate events like this, that's efficiency and savings. Downtown has optimal transit access, and plenty of parking garages, hotels, restaurants, and other supporting infrastructure that is a benefit to and benefits from a stadium. All of that would have to be built at Brook Park, and will only maybe be sustainable outside of game days.

 

Given where they plan to place the mixed use district from early renderings, I'm not convinced they know what will make this development successful. That being proximity to the airport and redline, not the stadium. In theory this could end up being like the Van Taken district +stadium, in which case it really could be a benefit to the region at large, but as of yet, I've seen very little to suggest that is what we'll actually get. 

 

If the Browns want to go alone and risk their own money building at Brook Park, great! But if it's going to be taxpayer money, I think the concern is justified. We aught to be concerned about the likely payback of this investment, as well as how it will impact previous public investments, many of which have been downtown, and have started to bare fruit. Basically it's not that Brook Park is necessarily a bad idea, it's just a risky bet, and one that I don't think makes sense for responsible stewards of public funds. 

 

I actually 100% agree with what you're saying here. My point isn't about funding at all, it's just that in the abstract, we shouldn't act like every single cool new thing has to go downtown, and in fact developing many nodes throughout the region is probably preferable.

 

That being said, I personally think the order of priorities should be as follows:

 

Priority 1 should be putting in as LITTLE public money from the region as possible.

 

Priority 2 should be having Haslam, the State of Ohio, and the feds spend as MUCH money as possible.

 

Priority 3 should be seeking a development that makes sense in every functional aspect, including design, location, etc.

Apologies to @KJP for what seemed like a bit of a rant. Not my intention at all! I was using the Queens photo as an example and I was just generally responding to other posts with the rest of the diatribe. But to address the point, even if it is not “our” NFL team, should we just be OK with moving it out of the city?  No matter how we try to rationalize it, BrookPark is not Cleveland plain and simple. To piggy back of of what @Chris314 said in a much more eloquent way than I ever could, a move out of the city in any capacity would end up being a net loss for the region and we should really do everything we can (whatever that means) to keep the team at least within city limits as it will benefit the region more than a move. That is what I meant and I apologize for any sort of misunderstanding as that is never how I want to actually communicate. 

One thing I would draw attention to that I see a lot is the assumption that if the stadium moves, then something else fabulous can move in and take its place. As I mentioned earlier, the potential of the site is immense... But what can we reasonably expect to happen there without a huge anchor and billionaire partner? I can imagine many more amazing things than a seldom-used football stadium and empty parking lots. But are those things realistic? And over what timeframe? Based on history and the timeframe of other regional transformative projects, realizing that vision could be decades to a generation. And, honestly, if we say that's what we're working toward to address the mistakes of past generations, that's fine, but let's just be honest about it. 

 

 

6 hours ago, KJP said:

 

1. This is a cool photo on it's own, but made me think of something.  New York City consolidated the 5 boroughs in 1898, when most of the outer parts looked like this photo.  NYC today covers 5 counties and about 300 sq. miles (excluding water).  Cuyahoga County is about 450 sq. miles.  In a sense NYC was forming a regionalized government structure almost 75-100 years before regional planning was really a thing.

2. Whether downtown is the best spot for the Browns or not, I applaud that the Mayor, County Executive, and other public figures appear to be aligned on the issue.  Who knows what's happening behind the scenes, but at least they are putting on a unified front.  It's refreshing that the public figures are talking in terms of what is best for the region as a whole. 

3. Public opinion on the issue still seems very rooted in a City vs. County mentality.   There's comparisons drawn between the move to Brook Park and the move to Baltimore, and invoking the "Art Modell Law".  It's not the same thing at all.

Edited August 21, 2024Aug 21 by Dino

4 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

I'm sure your personal, divisive comment will be widely appreciated.

It is personal, but not for the reasons you think. Those of us in Cleveland are tired of losing, whether it be tax base, city prestige, population, safety, etc; all while the burbs pick at us from every direction, and have been doing so for the last 60 years. 

It’s time, we as informed citizens, unite our “Balkan” cities under the banner of Cleveland. 
 

This needs to be grass roots!  Has anyone looked into ORC to see what needs to be done to get annexation on the ballot ? 
 

I want to live in a region where the Browns stadium will either be downtown Cleveland or just east of the airport Cleveland. 

33 minutes ago, Dino said:

2. Whether downtown is the best spot for the Browns or not, I applaud that the Mayor, County Executive, and other public figures appear to be aligned on the issue.  Who knows what's happening behind the scenes, but at least they are putting on a unified front.  It's refreshing that the public figures are talking in terms of what is best for the region as a whole. 

3. Public opinion on the issue still seems very rooted in a City vs. County mentality.   There's comparisons drawn between the move to Brook Park and the move to Baltimore, and invoking the "Art Modell Law".  It's not the same thing at all.

There’s a lot less support for Brookpark in the region than you realize. The Haslam’s have just bankrolled the local media and influence figures to push their agenda to make it seem like that’s what everyone wants. It’s not.

7 minutes ago, marty15 said:

There’s a lot less support for Brookpark in the region than you realize. The Haslam’s have just bankrolled the local media and influence figures to push their agenda to make it seem like that’s what everyone wants. It’s not.

It's not about supporting one site or the other.  I just meant that public opinion is sometimes too focused on which jurisdiction gets how much revenue.  I personally think there are big pros and cons to both sites, but I respect the arguments for a downtown stadium due to it being an economic and civic anchor for the region (not just Cleveland).  I equally respect the arguments in favor of Brook Park that talk about highest and best uses of land from a regional perspective, i.e. is a stadium with parking the best use of a regional asset like the lakefront?  

9 minutes ago, Dino said:

It's not about supporting one site or the other.  I just meant that public opinion is sometimes too focused on which jurisdiction gets how much revenue.  I personally think there are big pros and cons to both sites, but I respect the arguments for a downtown stadium due to it being an economic and civic anchor for the region (not just Cleveland).  I equally respect the arguments in favor of Brook Park that talk about highest and best uses of land from a regional perspective, i.e. is a stadium with parking the best use of a regional asset like the lakefront?  

” i.e. is a stadium with parking the best use of a regional asset like the lakefront? “

Thats the thing. The absolute #1 reason for the Brookpark site is parking revenue for the Haslam’s. This site will NOT be any sort of transit node, and they’ll make sure of that. There is no profit for them in any other mode of transportation servicing that site.
 

And no one is going to pay to park to go to some Crocker Park lite in that location. There won’t be any mixed use component. Just parking lots for game day and airport overflow parking every other day. That’s it. 

1 hour ago, ClevelandNative said:

It is personal, but not for the reasons you think. Those of us in Cleveland are tired of losing, whether it be tax base, city prestige, population, safety, etc; all while the burbs pick at us from every direction, and have been doing so for the last 60 years. 

It’s time, we as informed citizens, unite our “Balkan” cities under the banner of Cleveland. 
 

This needs to be grass roots!  Has anyone looked into ORC to see what needs to be done to get annexation on the ballot ? 
 

I want to live in a region where the Browns stadium will either be downtown Cleveland or just east of the airport Cleveland. 

 

A football stadium and its 20,000 parking spaces are something you WANT to lose to a suburb. It is by its very nature anti-urban. If we can't think of a better use for prime, downtown lakefront land than a 60,000-seat facility that occupies 31 acres and thousands of parking spaces that occupy more than 500 acres and are significantly used only a dozen times per year, than we have failed to offer a quality urban product that competes with its suburbs and other legacy metros. When you look at these pictures, remember that the city, per its lease with the Browns are required to have a certain number of parking spaces available within a certain distance of the stadium. If these lots are to be developed, then structured parking decks (at $30,000+ per parking space) must be provided or something else has to be demolished for parking lots. Guys, let the stadium go to Brook Park for the sake of a more livable and enjoyable downtown. Who knows, it might someday offer the same or better urbanity and quality of public services than what I currently enjoy in my densely developed, 24-hour, mixed-use neighborhood! 

 

500+ acres of downtown parking lots....

 

 

3 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

Want Cleveland to stop losing? Then start offering a better product.

 

A football stadium and its 20,000 parking spaces are something you WANT to lose to a suburb. It is by its very nature anti-urban. If we can't think of a better use for prime, downtown lakefront land than a 60,000-seat facility that occupies 31 acres and thousands of parking spaces that occupy more than 500 acres and are significantly used only a dozen times per year, than we have failed to offer a quality urban product. When you look at these pictures, remember that the city, per its lease with the Browns are required to have a certain number of parking spaces available within a certain distance of the stadium. If these lots are to be developed, then structured parking decks (at $30,000+ per parking space) must be provided or something else has to be demolished for parking lots. Guys, let the stadium go to Brook Park for the sake of a more livable and enjoyable downtown. Who knows, it might someday offer the same or better urbanity than what I currently enjoy in my neighborhood!

 

500+ acres of downtown parking lots....

 

 

You of all people know that there are major, current plans with actual financing and political will to change this.  16 years of Frank Jackson takes time to shake. You know this though. 
 

2 of those pictures you used are subject to those plans. 

6 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

A football stadium and its 20,000 parking spaces are something you WANT to lose to a suburb. It is by its very nature anti-urban. If we can't think of a better use for prime, downtown lakefront land than a 60,000-seat facility that occupies 31 acres and thousands of parking spaces that occupy more than 500 acres and are significantly used only a dozen times per year, than we have failed to offer a quality urban product that competes with its suburbs and other legacy metros. When you look at these pictures, remember that the city, per its lease with the Browns are required to have a certain number of parking spaces available within a certain distance of the stadium. If these lots are to be developed, then structured parking decks (at $30,000+ per parking space) must be provided or something else has to be demolished for parking lots. Guys, let the stadium go to Brook Park for the sake of a more livable and enjoyable downtown. Who knows, it might someday offer the same or better urbanity and quality of public services than what I currently enjoy in my densely developed, 24-hour, mixed-use neighborhood! 

 

500+ acres of downtown parking lots....

 

 

 

Thank you.  I only wish that they could tie this into the airport improvements that are contemplated

“Want Cleveland to stop losing? Then offer a better product!”

 

This is the mentality that needs to change within the region as a whole though, and my main point throughout this discussion. Cleveland shouldn’t have to compete in some sort of capitalistic way with the almost 60 other cities that rely on Cleveland to survive in the first place. In my earlier rant I even said that I don’t care if it stays downtown, just that we can and should find a place within city limits because that should be the most important thing. This is why land swaps, annexations, and any other option should be on the table if we are going to move the stadium out of downtown if the ridiculous number of empty parcels in the city that could offer the Haslems exactly what they want are not even on the table as an option. If Cleveland is able to annex the land that the stadium is going to be built on then this conversation never needs to happen and all is well. But the smaller cities forcing its lifeblood to compete for things that literally are only in Northeast Ohio because of Cleveland’s status as a legacy city is what continues to hold the entire region back. BrookPark suffers zero economic consequences if they continue to not be the host city of an NFL team, but Cleveland and every other city in the region suffers if Cleveland loses it. 

 

Then we turn Burke into the country’s coolest IKEA…with a Ferris Wheel! 

12 minutes ago, marty15 said:

You of all people know that there are major, current plans with actual financing and political will to change this.  16 years of Frank Jackson takes time to shake. You know this though. 
 

2 of those pictures you used are subject to those plans. 

 

One picture is (hasn't been built yet but am hopeful it will). The other (the Muny Lot shot) is only partially subject to proposed, long-range plans. The third is an optional site for the county's courthouse. None of those plans take into the account the number parking spaces that are critical to the current stadium lease and would have been critical to the next stadium lease -- which is a big reason why the Haslams looked elsewhere.

 

I removed the “Want Cleveland to stop losing? Then offer a better product!” comment because I was certain it would take this thread off topic. I would be happy to discuss this in a more appropriate thread, however.

 

I never ceases to amaze how emotional an issue the Browns/Haslams/stadium is. But I certainly can't complain. 😉

 

9 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

One picture is. The other (the Muny Lot shot) is only partially subject to proposed, long-range plans. The third is an optional site for the county's courthouse. None of those plans take into the account the number parking spaces that are critical to the current stadium lease and would have been critical to the next stadium lease -- which is a big reason why the Haslams looked elsewhere. 

So we’re talking about potentially spending $1.2 billion dollars to “renovate” a perfectly fine stadium. But spending a dime on structured parking for it isn’t affordable?
 

This whole thing stinks. And it’s cause the team owners are crooks and grifters.

8 minutes ago, Boaty McBoatface said:

“Want Cleveland to stop losing? Then offer a better product!”

 

This is the mentality that needs to change within the region as a whole though, and my main point throughout this discussion. Cleveland shouldn’t have to compete in some sort of capitalistic way with the almost 60 other cities that rely on Cleveland to survive in the first place. In my earlier rant I even said that I don’t care if it stays downtown, just that we can and should find a place within city limits because that should be the most important thing. This is why land swaps, annexations, and any other option should be on the table if we are going to move the stadium out of downtown if the ridiculous number of empty parcels in the city that could offer the Haslems exactly what they want are not even on the table as an option. If Cleveland is able to annex the land that the stadium is going to be built on then this conversation never needs to happen and all is well. But the smaller cities forcing its lifeblood to compete for things that literally are only in Northeast Ohio because of Cleveland’s status as a legacy city is what continues to hold the entire region back. BrookPark suffers zero economic consequences if they continue to not be the host city of an NFL team, but Cleveland and every other city in the region suffers if Cleveland loses it. 

 

Then we turn Burke into the country’s coolest IKEA…with a Ferris Wheel! 

 

Just think it should be pointed out that the nation's five highest GDP per-capita metros with a population over 500,000 are: 

 

1. San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA MSA

2. San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley, CA MSA

3. Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA MSA

4. Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH MSA

5. Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT MSA

 

Each of these metros has a GDP per capita of more than $100,000. Each also has *dozens* of towns and cities. I'm all for regionalism, but I don't think you can by any means argue that consolidation is "the most important thing" when clearly the most prosperous metros in the U.S. never consolidated.

 

With every acre you annex comes more expense--that's a guarantee. Sometimes, but not always, additional revenue comes with too. It's not at all clear that the stadium will be revenue positive for the host city. The current one definitely isn't.

 

And as far as a "legacy city" not having as much appeal, other than Seattle, I don't think any of the main cities in those metros (San Jose, San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, Bridgeport) have an NFL stadium within city limits. The 49ers' stadium isn't even in the right metro! (It's in Santa Clara, which is in the San Jose metro). So I don't think the location of the stadium is going to hold back our economy given it hasn't done so for 4/5 of the most prosperous major metros.

30 minutes ago, KJP said:

I never ceases to amaze how emotional an issue the Browns/Haslams/stadium is. But I certainly can't complain. 😉

 

Here are the options:

 

Keep the stadium where it is and execute a lakefront plan that is done, has a price tag and is a big improvement of what we have now.

 

Move it to Brook Park, paying vastly more public funds to do so. Revise the lakefront plan and hope there are resources left over to do anything with it. Sounds great but that is a massive, difficult assignment. It's like starting with a kitchen renovation and then deciding to knock your whole house down and start over. Edit: If Jimmy doesn't suck all the public money into Brook Park and there are realistic partners to help fill in the space he's leaving, then we're talking about a different thing. But all evidence points in the other direction.

 

This to me is the definition of the phrase "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."

 

Edited August 21, 2024Aug 21 by coneflower

13 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

And as far as a "legacy city" not having as much appeal, other than Seattle, I don't think any of the main cities in those metros (San Jose, San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, Bridgeport) have an NFL stadium within city limits. The 49ers' stadium isn't even in the right metro! (It's in Santa Clara, which is in the San Jose metro). So I don't think the location of the stadium is going to hold back our economy given it hasn't done so for 4/5 of the most prosperous major metros.

My wording wasn’t clear again haha. I was saying that BECAUSE we are a legacy city we have things like professional sports teams, the orchestra, the art museum, etc. Nobody is clamoring to go to the Avon Museum of Natural History, just how Cleveland is the only city in the county that is in the running for a new soccer team. I’m bad at this talking good thing. 

 

While I don’t disagree with you that other metro areas suffer from the same sort of competition, the stark contrast with Cleveland is that those metros are growing, which is in turn helping the city centers continue to thrive and receive investment dollars. It’s not like Seattle will ever lose out on getting a Trader Joe’s because they lost the competition with Tacoma. TJ’s will go to both places very happily. In Cleveland all of our Trader Joe’s that claim to be in Cleveland are not anywhere close to the city they claim to be in because the companies just look at numbers on paper, and most of the money in the region has moved across the border to the burbs unfortunately. And with a total lack of population growth, that means that we are robbing Peter to pay Paul. If that makes any sense. I could be absolutely incorrect, but we have been subsidizing suburban growth by poaching resources from the city for 70 years and it has only made the region weaker and weaker. 

One idea I love is building a new stadium in Brook Park (without copious amounts of City funding) and converting the existing stadium to a smaller capacity (maybe 25k) stadium.  Not only do I like the idea, but it seems like a good all around solution to the many valid concerns people have.

 

1. The Browns get a new stadium.  This will be necessary at some point no matter what, maybe in 15 years?, maybe in 30?, and a new stadium will have to go on a different site in my opinion.  There really isn't enough room to build a new stadium on the lakefront without first demolishing the old one and finding a temporary home for several years just doesn't seem like a good idea.

2. A new Browns stadium on a different site allows more freedom for parking, spin off development or whatever else makes Jimmy happy.  If Jimmy can finance it, let him have what he wants.

3.  I really don't think a stadium in Brook Park will spell doom for downtown hotels and restaurants.  i think it's more likely that people will still stay downtown and ride out to the game/event.

4. The City wouldn't have to pump hundreds of millions into a stadium that hosts maybe a dozen events a year.  The City also sheds the financial liability of repairs and upkeep.  The City DOES lose the tax revenue, but all serious research indicates that tax revenue generated by a stadium does not exceed costs incurred by a government.

5. The City could then put that money towards the conversion of the Browns Stadium into a smaller stadium, which is more likely to host more events and will be presumably cheaper and easier to operate and maintain.  It also has more money for supportive developments like the LandBridge.

6. A smaller stadium makes Cleveland a better option for MLS Next, NWSL, or maybe even a USL team.  The City could also court the $150M pledged for a new soccer stadium to help make this happen.  It would also be the perfect size for a wide range of concerts, high school and college games, etc.  Browns Stadium was always too big for much of anything besides the NFL and couple huge concerts.  A 25k capacity would only need 24 sell out crowds to draw more visitors than 9 sellout Browns games.  I think a smaller stadium could bring in more people.

7. A smaller stadium on the lake that could be used for high school games, regional playoff games, civic events, and all that totally fits in with the Mayor's desire to develop the lakefront in a way that includes everyone.

8. A smaller stadium requires a lot less parking, so the existing structured parking would probably suffice, or maybe some new parking structures could be built along with new apartment buildings.

 

This would get the Browns a new domed stadium and all the parking they want.  It would keep (and enhance in my opinion) an anchor on the lake that draws hundreds of thousands of people a year to downtown Cleveland.  It reduces or eliminates the need for massive amounts of parking in our downtown core.  This fits in with the City's civic vision for the lakefront and is more affordable for them to realize, while freeing up money that could also be used to further bolster the lakefront (transit hub, landbridge, parks, etc.).  And it might help get professional soccer to Cleveland!

I look at major soccer stadiums all over Europe, take your pick. Liverpool, Manchester, Paris, Madrid, Milan, Dortmund so on and so forth and Downtown or it's periphery really is our only hope in the region of having a stadium in a walkable transit rich neighborhood IMO because we have and keep trying to pillage our cities and send assets out the suburbs. It actually feels at times to me that we are actively trying to encourage people to be more reliant on cars despite all the research on why auto centric culture and development is so problematic. If they want 20k parking spaces at their new stadium and aren't prepared to compromise then they should bare the full responsibility of that in my view.

 

I am not naive enough to think a day will come where 65k spectators will use public transit to come to a game in Downtown Cleveland, that's just not realistic as wishful as it is, but it's not like there is a dearth of options in terms of places to park either. If people weren't so fcking lazy and would walk an extra block or two they wouldn't end up stuck in a traffic jam and then be brainwashed into thinking that Brook Park is the land of milk and honey where they will come and go in 5 minutes. This obviously isn't is your local Starbucks or Target but there is a large number of people who think they should have the same vehicle access and parking amenities at an NFL stadium as they do at these places. It's indicative of how broken our culture is that many Americans think a stadium shouldn't be near the core of a city in the Midwest but nobody sees it as a problem abroad in some of the world's biggest and most iconic cities.

Edited August 21, 2024Aug 21 by snakebite

2 hours ago, LlamaLawyer said:

 

Just think it should be pointed out that the nation's five highest GDP per-capita metros with a population over 500,000 are: 

 

1. San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA MSA

2. San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley, CA MSA

3. Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA MSA

4. Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH MSA

5. Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT MSA

 

Each of these metros has a GDP per capita of more than $100,000. Each also has *dozens* of towns and cities. I'm all for regionalism, but I don't think you can by any means argue that consolidation is "the most important thing" when clearly the most prosperous metros in the U.S. never consolidated.

 

With every acre you annex comes more expense--that's a guarantee. Sometimes, but not always, additional revenue comes with too. It's not at all clear that the stadium will be revenue positive for the host city. The current one definitely isn't.

 

And as far as a "legacy city" not having as much appeal, other than Seattle, I don't think any of the main cities in those metros (San Jose, San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, Bridgeport) have an NFL stadium within city limits. The 49ers' stadium isn't even in the right metro! (It's in Santa Clara, which is in the San Jose metro). So I don't think the location of the stadium is going to hold back our economy given it hasn't done so for 4/5 of the most prosperous major metros.

if you haven't realize these metros are literally expanding at the seems of population and development. They can afford to be without an NFL stadium with additional events. Cleveland on the other hand, is about to be overtaken by Cinci proper in terms of population in the next coming decades, continues to be bleed businesses and population to the suburbs, and has no sustained growth to offset those losses. The Browns leaving Cleveland proper, and taking those year round events that the Haslams want from places like Rocket Mortgage Field House is a whole lot devastating to Cleveland compared to the Seahawks moving to the Seattle suburbs. 

Edited August 22, 2024Aug 22 by AsDustinFoxWouldSay
incorrect

Two questions: 

 

1. Does anyone actually read all the posts on this topic or simply quickly scan over them like I do? If you do read them all, how long does it take?

2. When this thing is all said, done, and built, will this topic have more or less pages than SHW?

3 hours ago, AsDustinFoxWouldSay said:

if you haven't realize these metros are literally expanding at the seems of population and development. They can afford to be without an NFL stadium with additional events. Cleveland on the other hand, is about to be overtaken by Cinci proper in terms of population in the next coming decades, continues to be bleed businesses and population to the suburbs, and has no sustained growth to offset those losses. The Browns leaving Cleveland proper, and taking those year round events that the Haslams want from places like Rocket Mortgage Field House is a whole lot devastating to Cleveland compared to the Seahawks moving to the Seattle suburbs. 

Thank you - Well Said