13 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. 

One thing, I wouldn't say we are "bleeding population" anymore. The last estimate showed that we lost 150 people last year, we essentially have flattened out and are in position for growth within the next few years. Maintaining our existing entertainment options and building on them is definitely important but at the same time I don't think that Jimmy World getting built in Brookpark is going to trigger a great migration to that area. Downtown Cleveland will always be the more popular between the two especially with Millennials and Gen Z (not all obviously). We have done a good job of maintaining steady growth in population DT, having better programming, and attracting events. Speaking of events, I still feel Rocket Mortgage Field House would still be competitive. Yes the stadium would be newer but the cost to book the venue would be higher so the ROI would be harder to achieve. Also the accessibility would come into play as well. No offense, you approach with more of a glass half empty view when it comes to Cleveland so I'm not expecting you to agree but Downtown Cleveland will be okay if the Browns left or stayed. If they left the focus would just shift to creating an actual neighborhood instead of entertainment area.  

23 minutes ago, MyPhoneDead said:

One thing, I wouldn't say we are "bleeding population" anymore. The last estimate showed that we lost 150 people last year, we essentially have flattened out and are in position for growth within the next few years. Maintaining our existing entertainment options and building on them is definitely important but at the same time I don't think that Jimmy World getting built in Brookpark is going to trigger a great migration to that area. Downtown Cleveland will always be the more popular between the two especially with Millennials and Gen Z (not all obviously). We have done a good job of maintaining steady growth in population DT, having better programming, and attracting events. Speaking of events, I still feel Rocket Mortgage Field House would still be competitive. Yes the stadium would be newer but the cost to book the venue would be higher so the ROI would be harder to achieve. Also the accessibility would come into play as well. No offense, you approach with more of a glass half empty view when it comes to Cleveland so I'm not expecting you to agree but Downtown Cleveland will be okay if the Browns left or stayed. If they left the focus would just shift to creating an actual neighborhood instead of entertainment area.  

"I don't think that Jimmy World getting built in Brookpark is going to trigger a great migration to that area."

 

I completely agree with you that people wont shift to going to Brookpark more than a handful of times a year. But Isn't this what they are trying to sell us though? That Brookpark will become a huge Crocker/Pinecrest type concept. In order for that to happen there would have to be some sort of population migration and if there's not then none of these concepts they are proposing will ever work so why give all this public money for it.

Even if the fantasy plays out and the AI housing is built, how many units are we talking about? 500? 1000?  Crocker Park has 650 units, so I'm imagining this would be comparable. 

 

And who on earth would live there? Urbanists want to stay in Cleveland/adjacent suburbs, suburbanites with means have a plethora of better options (be it a dense Chagrin Falls or sprawled out Avon Lake).

 

So who is living in a "luxury" apartment right next to Hopkins. Probably corporate housing and second homes for the weekend.

 

It's a huge waste of resources, sure, but I wouldn't worry about population migrations.

15 hours ago, Boaty McBoatface said:

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. 

This is a problem in most American metros to one degree or another. But I think the heart of the problem is that continued outward expansion requires building new expensive infrastructure while wasting the existing infrastructure in the built-out environment. Brook Park has a population that is down 40% from the peak more than 50 years go, which would lead me to think new development in Brook Park is more akin to revitalizing the depopulated urban core than subsidized suburban growth. Definitely, I prefer developing the urban core over outward suburban expansion. But some of the posts above are talking about *annexation* as if the issue is not the location itself, but the mere fact that the location is not in Cleveland proper. There's also not a discussion of annexation of all of Brook Park to consolidate city services (which might be a good idea regardless of where the stadium is). There's just an assumption that we are better off developing Cleveland proper rather than say, Lakewood, which is actually denser than Cleveland is, or Brook Park, which at its peak population was about as dense as Cleveland is now. That's really the idea that I take issue with. In my heart, I really want the City of Cleveland to succeed, and I obviously care about the City of Cleveland more than Brook Park. But it seems like what's best for Cleveland probably depends on revenue/expense ratios for a stadium, moreso than having/not having a stadium.

32 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

This is a problem in most American metros to one degree or another. But I think the heart of the problem is that continued outward expansion requires building new expensive infrastructure while wasting the existing infrastructure in the built-out environment. Brook Park has a population that is down 40% from the peak more than 50 years go, which would lead me to think new development in Brook Park is more akin to revitalizing the depopulated urban core than subsidized suburban growth. Definitely, I prefer developing the urban core over outward suburban expansion. But some of the posts above are talking about *annexation* as if the issue is not the location itself, but the mere fact that the location is not in Cleveland proper. There's also not a discussion of annexation of all of Brook Park to consolidate city services (which might be a good idea regardless of where the stadium is). There's just an assumption that we are better off developing Cleveland proper rather than say, Lakewood, which is actually denser than Cleveland is, or Brook Park, which at its peak population was about as dense as Cleveland is now. That's really the idea that I take issue with. In my heart, I really want the City of Cleveland to succeed, and I obviously care about the City of Cleveland more than Brook Park. But it seems like what's best for Cleveland probably depends on revenue/expense ratios for a stadium, moreso than having/not having a stadium.

Agree that city limits are far from the most important issue here. It is a brownfield/infill site in what is an urban area for all intents and purposes. Not sure that the revenue impact on the city is all that great if the team moves. The question is does it hurt downtown or help downtown, or is it neutral.

18 hours 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. 

 

Yes but...are these plans something that WILL come to fruition in my lifetime or will they just lie on a shelf gathering dust along with all the other plans that never happen? 

 

We have two great assets that many cities would kill for - the river and the lakefront. Unfortunately those assets are inversely proportional to our ability to develop them properly. So yeah, in a perfect world put that occupied 15 day a year stadium and those legions of parking spaces somewhere other than the lakefront. But as Clevelanders we know the world is not perfect. So we're faced with the possibility of a bird in the hand (lakefront stadium) vs. birds in the bush (better potential future development). Besides, we don't have the money for a BP stadium anyway. Do we?

16 hours ago, snakebite said:

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.

I'm not sure I understand this argument.  While PSG and Real Madrid do have urban stadiums, but they are not in the city center.  The rest have stadiums outside the dense areas and are surrounded by surface parking.  As an urbanite, I am fine moving a large stadium to the suburbs (which by the way, is proposed to be located next to a train stop, surrounded by surface parking and highways, much like the European examples).  They take up a lot of space and don't generate much activity except for a few times a year.  Then we need to focus on bringing back the offices and residential that has left the City, because I think that will do more to create street life on a day to day basis.  That in turn will support more transit and commercial activity.  People are what create dense active cities, and stadiums only deliver the people a few days a year.

 

1 hour ago, TBideon said:

Even if the fantasy plays out and the AI housing is built, how many units are we talking about? 500? 1000?  Crocker Park has 650 units, so I'm imagining this would be comparable. 

 

And who on earth would live there? Urbanists want to stay in Cleveland/adjacent suburbs, suburbanites with means have a plethora of better options (be it a dense Chagrin Falls or sprawled out Avon Lake).

 

So who is living in a "luxury" apartment right next to Hopkins. Probably corporate housing and second homes for the weekend.

 

It's a huge waste of resources, sure, but I wouldn't worry about population migrations.

 

There are plenty of people at NASA that would want to live there.  New hires have very few newer options so close to Glenn.  If I were just starting there, I'd love to live <5 minutes from work and a train ride to Ohio City/Downtown.

 

There are lots of other people that work in the area that I'm sure would value living close to their job vs. moving to Avon or Chagrin Falls.  I'm sure a few Browns fans would want to live there just to make getting to games easier.

1 hour ago, TDi said:

"I don't think that Jimmy World getting built in Brookpark is going to trigger a great migration to that area."

 

I completely agree with you that people wont shift to going to Brookpark more than a handful of times a year. But Isn't this what they are trying to sell us though? That Brookpark will become a huge Crocker/Pinecrest type concept. In order for that to happen there would have to be some sort of population migration and if there's not then none of these concepts they are proposing will ever work so why give all this public money for it.

 

I get the criticism that the Haslams would never get around to building any type of "lifestyle center", but I don't buy that no one would go there if they actually did.  The Brook Park location is more convenient than Crocker to a huge part of the region, has prime access to two interstates and will have an RTA stop.  If there were something like Crocker there, only newer, who would go out of their way to go to Crocker?  I, for one, would shift all my visits from Crocker (which realistically aren't that many) to Brook Park if they had similar offerings.

20 hours ago, Dino said:

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.

 

Not even close.   That false analogy is being invoked by some of those opposing the move to Brookpark and it's downright insulting to those of us who pushed back on the NFL during the 90s.

23 minutes ago, acd said:

 

There are plenty of people at NASA that would want to live there.  New hires have very few newer options so close to Glenn. 

 

Good point.   Even during the 50s, apparently Ric Ocasek's dad got hired there and the family moved to Maple Heights, of all places.

8 minutes ago, acd said:

 

I get the criticism that the Haslams would never get around to building any type of "lifestyle center", but I don't buy that no one would go there if they actually did.  The Brook Park location is more convenient than Crocker to a huge part of the region, has prime access to two interstates and will have an RTA stop.  If there were something like Crocker there, only newer, who would go out of their way to go to Crocker?  I, for one, would shift all my visits from Crocker (which realistically aren't that many) to Brook Park if they had similar offerings.

Granted we're talking about fantasy, but let's say a lifestyle center actually develops in Brookpark. Do you honestly think enough people will go out of there year round to visit? Crocker Park is fairly established and caters to mid-higher end clientele who probably don't want to drive to the airport unless necessary. And I can't imagine east siders will make their way to Brookpark for yet another mall. That drive sucks, and I doubt the red line will see that many patrons.

 

I just don't see who'd be shopping there year round to warrant hundreds of millions in commercial investment. Sure there would be some people, at least early on, who're curious, but I don't see it sustained.

 

Eh, it's all conjecture. Jimmy isn't doing s**t but delaying the inevitable.

17 minutes ago, acd said:

 

I get the criticism that the Haslams would never get around to building any type of "lifestyle center", but I don't buy that no one would go there if they actually did.  The Brook Park location is more convenient than Crocker to a huge part of the region, has prime access to two interstates and will have an RTA stop.  If there were something like Crocker there, only newer, who would go out of their way to go to Crocker?  I, for one, would shift all my visits from Crocker (which realistically aren't that many) to Brook Park if they had similar offerings.

This is very unlikely to happen but okay lets just say this turns out to look exactly like what they showed in the videos.  Do you think there would be enough consistent foot traffic to draw additional retail to the region or just poach from Pinecrest and Crocker? With how hard it seems to get any national retail to come downtown I cant imagine they would see any difference in an area with less foot traffic 15 minutes away from downtown with Crocker and Pinecrest both about 20 minutes away as well. 

42 minutes ago, Dino said:

I'm not sure I understand this argument.  While PSG and Real Madrid do have urban stadiums, but they are not in the city center.  The rest have stadiums outside the dense areas and are surrounded by surface parking.  As an urbanite, I am fine moving a large stadium to the suburbs (which by the way, is proposed to be located next to a train stop, surrounded by surface parking and highways, much like the European examples).  They take up a lot of space and don't generate much activity except for a few times a year.  Then we need to focus on bringing back the offices and residential that has left the City, because I think that will do more to create street life on a day to day basis.  That in turn will support more transit and commercial activity.  People are what create dense active cities, and stadiums only deliver the people a few days a year.

 

 

Very few are actually directly in Downtown areas, you are correct. Major European cities have scales of urbanism far above anything in middle ranking American cities like Cleveland and therefore there are lots of transit strong neighborhoods outside of the Downtown areas. They have levels of vibrancy and a lack of vacant land which means it's just not worthwhile to build a stadium in a Downtown like in Manchester or Liverpool - many of these stadium locations have stood the same since the 1800s or early 19s and the tradition is valued highly. There isn't a rush to build 70k stadiums on suburban brownfields next to highways to get parking revenue from 20,000 spaces or to build a soulless adjacent bar malls, even when a new build is considered. No other site in Cleveland except Downtown has a combination of walkable streets, multiple train lines, rapid bus routes, various municipal bus routes, Amtrak. We did have buses to other parts of Ohio and the country but apparently that's better in Brook Park now moving forward....

 

All of those stadiums are also significantly closer to their urban cores than Brook Park is, they have far less on site parking spaces, there is much more frequent bus and train service, they are walkable and in some cases bikeable - large parts immediately surrounding the Brook Park site don't even have sidewalks ffs! Dortmund for instance has a seating capacity of over 80k and there only 10k parking spaces but Cleveland needs 20k for probably somewhere around 15,000 less seats. Manchester City only has 2k spaces on site. 

 

There are some "suburban" major stadiums in Europe, of course not every single stadium is close to a CBD or in an urban area....in the case of Atletico Madrid versus Brook Park it's about half the distance from their city centre, in a metro about three times the size of Cleveland, with a far more robust public transit network. That stadium even has a purpose built cycle path running parallel to the stadium! Engle and Snow Road would just like a sidewalk. Jimmy Haslam could not care less what the area on the outside looks like. He wants a contained walled off development and infact any outside infrastructure might just encourage people to park in cheaper spots or drink or stay somewhere on the outskirts.

 

 

Can we just lock this thread until some actual news comes out?

4 minutes ago, Ineffable_Matt said:

Can we just lock this thread until some actual news comes out?

 

How are we gonna do SHW numbers with that attitude. But no, I'm with you haha.

Come on lock the thread.

 

No way, who doesn't want to read more about European soccer stadiums.

 

I don't

 

Haha

 

 

 

On 8/21/2024 at 11:27 AM, 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. 

you had me till you misspelled Crocker Park..   completely unnecessary 

@G00pieYou know? I agree. My wife and I make that joke internally within our household and I forget that it really is an unnecessary jab. It’s more just stated out of bitterness because lifestyle centers in far flung suburbs really do prevent any decent retail from making it into the city, especially in Cleveland, and it is at least partly because a lot of older white people want walkable urbanism but are afraid to step foot in the city. Broad generalizations to be sure and I agree with you that it was an unnecessary misstep as far as my language. I’m glad that you at least agree with the points outside of my minor misstep. Shouldn’t have been said because I can totally understand how that would cloud any sort of rational and honest discourse. 

5 hours ago, Trojan Paz said:

Come on lock the thread.

 

No way, who doesn't want to read more about European soccer stadiums.

 

I don't

 

Haha

 

 

 

I’ll risk getting the thread locked :)

 

As it happens, as a born and bred Mancunian and City fan, a couple of years ago, for a friend, I overlayed United and City’s stadium locations in distance and approximate direction, from downtown in Cleveland terms. Using St Anne’s Square in Manchester and Public Square as the respective city-centers, United’s ground would be where the Cleveland Kennel is on Detroit and 93rd. City’s ground would be where The Agora is. 

Sounds like the approximate distance of League Park to Public Square. And back when League Park first opened, the density, layout, transit, mixed-use etc. of legacy US cities like Cleveland probably had more in common with European cities than their present-day versions. When we decide to build cities a certain way, that's what we get. Our cities are the result of collective choices, but often inspired by thought leaders like the Habsburgs or General Motors.

7 hours ago, KJP said:

Sounds like the approximate distance of League Park to Public Square. And back when League Park first opened, the density, layout, transit, mixed-use etc. of legacy US cities like Cleveland probably had more in common with European cities than their present-day versions. When we decide to build cities a certain way, that's what we get. Our cities are the result of collective choices, but often inspired by thought leaders like the Habsburgs or General Motors.

 

Which is why Wrigley works so well now.  4 1/2 miles from the Wrigley Building to Wrigley Field.  It's 2 1/2 miles from Public Square to League Park.  It's not a matter of distance as much as density and ease of access.  It's not hard to hop on a train an get dropped off right by the park.

Suggesting the stadium on Burke again 

The stark difference between the development philosophy Dan Gilbert and Jimmy Haslem (Downtown vs. Suburbs) has been documented on here. My question is why don't we do the renovation and then sell a continuous chunk of City owned land to him develop in Jimmy World. 

 

Dan Gilbert is building the riverfront couldn't we toss him the pit or the muni lot or both? 

8 hours ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

Suggesting the stadium on Burke again 

 

 

A music pavilion you say? Has someone been reading my posts on here? (the answer is no, but still, I'm glad someone else is mentioning the idea)

Can Cleveland support two music pavilions within close proximity?  

49 minutes ago, cfdwarrior said:

Can Cleveland support two music pavilions within close proximity?  

No, They can't. Who remembers the Tower City Amphitheater? I saw Harry Connick Jr. and Ratdog there. It hosted the Rib cookoff. Didn't last long.

1 hour ago, cfdwarrior said:

Can Cleveland support two music pavilions within close proximity?  

 

My thoughts too as this conversation has evolved. 

 

Maybe LiveNation would take it on to compete with AEG and Jacob's Pavilion, but then they'd be eating into their Blossom shows.

 

I don't think local venues/promoters would want to take on the task of managing a venue like that and I don't trust non-connected folks from the city or new development corporation to manage a large venue like that. 

1 minute ago, Growth Mindset said:

No, They can't. Who remembers the Tower City Amphitheater? I saw Harry Connick Jr. and Ratdog there. It hosted the Rib cookoff. Didn't last long.

Yes, I remember it.  I never attended an event there.  It didn't look like a very attractive venue or location.

Maybe it's time to revive the Rock-O-Meter?

2 hours ago, LibertyBlvd said:

Yes, I remember it.  I never attended an event there.  It didn't look like a very attractive venue or location.

 

It was a fun, unique tucked-in waterfront setting but yes, it absolutely could have or should have had some beautification done. I always hoped the venue and even the rib festival seasonal layout would remain as seeds to grow along with an attractive new development (accessible by Boardwalk!!!) but hey, what can ya do. It definitely was a million times better than a waterside parking lot :-) 

While a lot of attention has been given to closing Burke and possibly building a new "stadium village" there, the city should also look west -- from the river mouth to the stadium.  There was some discussion at one time of moving the port closer to E55th, which has better highway access.  Doing so would open up a lot of desirable land for development (and more parking for the exurbanites).

 

Doing so would take as long (or longer) than closing Burke, but it should be on the table.

^ This was planned awhile ago and absolutely should be on the table

 

https://planning.clevelandohio.gov/lakefront/iactive/poster/waterfront_poster.pdf 

1 hour ago, Foraker said:

While a lot of attention has been given to closing Burke and possibly building a new "stadium village" there, the city should also look west -- from the river mouth to the stadium.  There was some discussion at one time of moving the port closer to E55th, which has better highway access.  Doing so would open up a lot of desirable land for development (and more parking for the exurbanites).

 

Doing so would take as long (or longer) than closing Burke, but it should be on the table.

Maybe that port stop they built on the WFL would finally open...

Edited August 27, 2024Aug 27 by PlanCleveland
Typo

24 minutes ago, PlanCleveland said:

Maybe that port stop they built on the WFL would finally open...

Excuse me?

15 minutes ago, MyPhoneDead said:

Excuse me?

 

Plans described by NEOtrans

1 hour ago, PlanCleveland said:

 

Plans described by NEOtrans

If something was ever actually built in there - how would they actually get in there as it is surrounded by RTA tracks & more train tracks

3 hours ago, Clvlndr in LV said:

^ This was planned awhile ago and absolutely should be on the table

 

https://planning.clevelandohio.gov/lakefront/iactive/poster/waterfront_poster.pdf 

Dream scenario right here...

Was there any rendering of the development at the port stop?  

If passed this private equity investment could be used for building a dome in Brook Park if they decide to build it there.https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/41013650/nfl-owners-approve-private-equity-investment

19 minutes ago, simplythis said:

If passed this private equity investment could be used for building a dome in Brook Park if they decide to build it there.https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/41013650/nfl-owners-approve-private-equity-investment

 

Jimmy did say he wanted innovative funding! Getting more private money into this to take the burden off taxpayers I think would neutralize a lot of the opposition. I am not real smart on this stuff but it seems like a good way for owners to tap into the value of their teams without losing control. And I assume the PE people will buy and sell their holdings periodically to make their own profits as values go up. I would think that would add pressure on teams to maximize their value through big developments like this and/or finding markets with more potential to enter. 
 

 

41 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

Was there any rendering of the development at the port stop?  

 

Of course (you wouldn't believe how many renderings of partially-built/never-built projects I have)!

 

Here's the World Trade Center...

 

 

 

The Defense Finance Accounting Service Center....

 

 

 

And the Eaton HQ....

42 minutes ago, simplythis said:

If passed this private equity investment could be used for building a dome in Brook Park if they decide to build it there.https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/41013650/nfl-owners-approve-private-equity-investment

If they are allowing private equity firms to purchase a minority stake in a team as a means to fund stadiums (which I don't really buy for a second that private money will be used for stadiums -more likely for the spin off developments), why not allow the City of Cleveland to become a minority owner in exchange for their investment?  The Browns are valued at $4.6B, so $462M would get them a 10% share.  With an annual operating income of $100M, the City's cut could be $10M per year.  Plus their 10% stake would grow in value.  Plus maybe with some shared ownership, cities and sports owners might cooperate a little more?  None of this is going to happen of course, but I like the thought of it!

16 hours ago, PlanCleveland said:

 

Plans described by NEOtrans

And people in Cleveland think that 450 acres of Burke Lakefront is going to magically sprout highrises, retail and restaurants.... 

2 hours ago, Cleburger said:

And people in Cleveland think that 450 acres of Burke Lakefront is going to magically sprout highrises, retail and restaurants.... 

Also part of my fear if the Browns leave the lakefront. Obviously in an ideal world the stadium moves and we fill the lakefront in with great projects and parks. But as we've seen elsewhere, would most of that development ever happen? Will a bunch of the land still be waiting for development to start in 2050? But if they stay on the lakefront with the cities offer, that means the Muni Lot and other land has no potential for development due to parking needs. But if we currently can't even fill in other land and parking craters, would Muni Lot development even be on the table in the next 20-30 years?

Unironically though, this is why Cleveland is great. We have so much undeveloped, quality urban land that we don't even know what to do with. It will take decades, but we'll find something to use it for eventually. The available space will make it easier to grow in the coming decades.

To bring this back to stadium/arena construction and away from whatever the hell is being discussed above...here is a recent article about the impact of the Sixers new arena in Chinatown:

 

https://whyy.org/articles/philadelphia-sixers-arena-study-impact-economic-community/

 

“Let’s be clear: Billionaire developers will benefit the most from 76 Place, and these studies are window dressing to obscure that fact. Don’t fall for it,” said Rev. Greg Edwards, executive director of POWER Interfaith, in a statement."

Okay folks - this isn't the thread for Boomers calling the shots on corporate site selection, parents with school age kids in the city, free parking, CERCLA, etc. Some of you long-term folks know better than to pile on a derailing post and it's been a while since we've handed out suspensions - just sayin'.

blah, blah, but nice to see on the feed —

 

 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C-xz-aXPbH8/?igsh=MWJsYmo2d3o4NHBrNQ==

Incoming!