It's funny when you think about it. The main rationale for closing Burke is that it does not deliver economic benefit to the city, yet some officials want the Browns to move their stadium to Burke, despite the fact that economic research shows new stadiums also do not provide economic benefit!

12 hours ago, LibertyBlvd said:

And I assume the muni lot would still be available for parking/tailgating, although it would require a pedestrian bridge over the shoreway.

 

Yes, at a minimum, plans to develop portions of the muni lot would not happen if we move the Stadium three to five quarters of a mile East. 

 

12 hours ago, cadmen said:

Burke is large enough for a stadium, village and parking with enough land left over for other developments including a park. Of course none of this will happen immediately, if at all. That's why l said the timelines don't add up for a new Browns stadium anytime soon. It's just one of many possibilities over several decades IF Burke is closed. 

 

But if it IS closed the clock starts ticking on those possibilities.

It is, but looking at this as a purely numbers thing loses a lot of information. Not all the land is equally valuable, since only a tiny percentage of Burke is walkable from the downtown core. Burke, plus the confined disposal facilities, is 400 plus acres, so it's easy to say it can absorb 100 acres of parking, but when I try to mentally map it out, this isn't obvious to me. 

 

My first assumption is that any mixed use development or new neighborhood really needs to be in the southwest corner of Burke. I don't see this succeeding unless it's as connected to the downtown core as possible. One option is to put the stadium in this area. That's a significant chunk out of the mixed use neighborhood, about a third, and it would really change how it feels, but it's probably the only place you can put the stadium where it can realistically rely primarily (or at least partially) on existing downtown parking infrastructure, it will likely still come with new parking, but not nearly as much as literally anywhere else. 

 

In the below quote I visualize 45 acres of mixed use development.

On 9/19/2024 at 9:04 PM, Ethan said:

I was curious to see 45 acres of Burke overlaid on a map. It basically represents the terminal area. 

 

 

 

In case anyone is thinking that's not enough space for development here's similar (slightly smaller) tracts of land laid out over the Warehouse District and the Van Aken District. 

 

 

 

45 acres of development downtown would be transformational multi decade project. And a several hundred acre park would also be transformational for downtown and the surrounding area, just in a very different way. Personally, I'm hoping for Congress to step in and help close Burke so we're not waiting more than a decade just to start the project. But even if that isn't manageable, as the old saying goes, the best time to plant a tree was twenty years ago, the second best time is today, so even if this will take decades we should get started as soon as possible. Worst case scenario we're creating a better city for our kids.

 

The other two most likely option are immediately East or North of this development. I personally hate the idea of North, as it would mean putting the stadium immediately on the lake which seems like a waste of what I'd consider the most valuable part of Burke. East is the option I'd prefer, if it could be placed East of the development area near the highway with minimal new parking I think it would be a great option, but my fear is that it starts to get too far away from the downtown parking infrastructure to realistically rely on it without adding a boatload of new parking. I don't think you can add 50-100 of acres of parking without killing what the park could have been. 

 

 

I was curious, so the above area basically represents the stadium plus ~40 acres of parking. Realistically we'd have more than 40 acres of parking, probably at least twice as much. The exact location isn't too important, the main point is that there really isn't any way to add anything like the parking needs of a football stadium without effectively splitting the park in two (at best). It is big enough to withstand that, but in doing so you basically immediately resign any chance of this being a Metroparks Reservation quality park immediately adjacent to downtown, which is admittedly what I want, and what I think is best for Cleveland. It helps us lean into a new angle as a forest city on a lake and a river, heavy on nature and recreation. It brings our fabulous emerald necklace into downtown with a new jewel. (Obviously this would take a long time, as parks take time to mature, the wouldn't be a quick fix). 

 

Of course this could also be designed more or less like how it was roughed up in a NeoTrans article a while ago, in which case why bother having a park at all? It will add no value and basically just be a fancy perimeter for a parking lot. 

 

https://neo-trans.blog/2024/08/30/officials-want-burke-airport-on-the-table-for-browns/

 

 

Actually this particular rough up is using nearly all of Burke for the stadium and stadium adjacent needs, the park is almost exclusively relegated to the confined disposable facility. That is a choice we could make, but I'm arguing we shouldn't.

 

I'd be interested to see more detailed proposals for land use at this site with a stadium included. I won't name anyone because I don't want to volunteer work onto anyone, but we have a few very talented forumers who could draw up some nice schematics. 

 

There are of course other options I didn't discuss above and I would invite creative speculation.

 

TLDR:

To conclude, I'm not saying we can't have a stadium at Burke, we obviously could, I'm saying we'd have to sacrifice something, and realistically that sacrifice is coming from the possible park. I believe that sacrifice would be significant and that at the end of the day, a new central jewel in the emerald necklace is a better use of downtown adjacent lakefront land than parking for a sports stadium. 

I think Baiju Shah, president and CEO of the Greater Cleveland Partnership, nails the qualitative reasons why we must do this now.  Per Shah:  ...said he wants the city to work “with urgency” to close the small airport and open the acreage for public access. “We can make this happen. We must make this happen,” he said.  The city’s future depends on it, he said...It will take a few years, he acknowledged. “But we must make this happen in an accelerated fashion.”

 

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2024/09/cleveland-chamber-chief-supports-urgent-closure-of-burke-lakefront-airport.html

 

The players need to recognize this opportunity set up by the 2 Bibb reports and not miss this rarely open public policy window for radical fast action versus the usual Cleveland no action or snail paced incrementalism.  We need to accelorate a lot more shiny objects to compete for new residents and jobs with peer cities like Columbus (top 10 growth) and even Milwaukee (in terms of amazing lakefront access and development).  Shutting Burke and converting to partial economic development (NFL or other) with the remainder as public access nature preserve will compliment Bibb's Shore-to-Core-to-Shore plan at the northern edge (as it also seems the proposed women's soccer development would activate an ugly dead zone unexpectedly at the southern tail of the Shore-to-Core-to-Shore below the Cavs/Bedrock/Clinic venture).

When/if Burke closes regardless of what ever is built there, at a minimum a strip of some magnitude along the water needs to be set aside for parkland. 

13 hours ago, cadmen said:

When/if Burke closes regardless of what ever is built there, at a minimum a strip of some magnitude along the water needs to be set aside for parkland. 

I think to some degree people have some sort of false impression of what this Burkke "waterfront" property would bel. Unless you've spent time on a boat in this location, you might not realize the reality of it.  This is inside the breakwall of the Cleveland Harbor.   There are no waves breaking, but there is plenty of trash, logs etc.  After a big storm the water turns brown and there are lots of dead fish.  It's not exactly some sort of utopian beach. 

3 hours ago, Cleburger said:

I think to some degree people have some sort of false impression of what this Burkke "waterfront" property would bel. Unless you've spent time on a boat in this location, you might not realize the reality of it.  This is inside the breakwall of the Cleveland Harbor.   There are no waves breaking, but there is plenty of trash, logs etc.  After a big storm the water turns brown and there are lots of dead fish.  It's not exactly some sort of utopian beach. 

 

And as I have said it's directly in the path of winds coming straight across the lake for a long way.

7 hours ago, Cleburger said:

I think to some degree people have some sort of false impression of what this Burkke "waterfront" property would bel. Unless you've spent time on a boat in this location, you might not realize the reality of it.  This is inside the breakwall of the Cleveland Harbor.   There are no waves breaking, but there is plenty of trash, logs etc.  After a big storm the water turns brown and there are lots of dead fish.  It's not exactly some sort of utopian beach. 

I don’t think you need a beach here. A nice, big park that restores some of the habitat would be great in my opinion. Add trails, especially opening it up on the lake and plant a bunch of native trees that were once here would do wonders and help with the wind. Get the Metroparks involved and go for federal/state funding to help clean up the water.

@Cleburger l'm not talking about a beach here. I'm talking about a park with mature trees, trails, and some kind of natural barrier along the water. Something like Stanley Park in Vanvouver. It can be created quickly and once everything is planted it won't take alot of maintenance dollars either. 

 

Then we can fill in the rest of Burke at our leisure, as is our wont.

Somewhat relevant to where the stadium goes - I'm terrified of driving on the highways around town after games let out. I was driving through DMC yesterday and witnessed post game swerving and swaying with a handful of speeding drivers (and not texting swerving...). I hope wherever the new stadium goes, we figure out a way to curtail drunk driving after the game because it's always a bad time walking/driving/biking after these idiots get behind the wheel. It's larger than the stadium, but still, in this regard I'd almost be okay with the airport site to get them out of the immediacy of downtown. 

 

Cleveland police make fewer arrests for drunken driving, a drop some say stems from a depleted force

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2024/09/cleveland-police-make-fewer-arrests-for-drunken-driving-a-drop-some-say-stems-from-a-depleted-force.html

 

 

Regarding debris clean-up I believe that can be or is being addressed?

https://www.aapa-ports.org/files/PDFs/EnvironmentalAwards/AAPA 2013 Environmental Awards - Flotsam and Jetsam.pdf

And this gives hope

https://ohioseagrant.osu.edu/amp/news/2022/aihb0/seabin-marina-2022

If debris and garbage is still a problem at our new lakefront nature preserve and trails we will have many Gen X, Y and Zers to activate 😀

1 hour ago, GISguy said:

Somewhat relevant to where the stadium goes - I'm terrified of driving on the highways around town after games let out. I was driving through DMC yesterday and witnessed post game swerving and swaying with a handful of speeding drivers (and not texting swerving...). I hope wherever the new stadium goes, we figure out a way to curtail drunk driving after the game because it's always a bad time walking/driving/biking after these idiots get behind the wheel. It's larger than the stadium, but still, in this regard I'd almost be okay with the airport site to get them out of the immediacy of downtown. 

 

Cleveland police make fewer arrests for drunken driving, a drop some say stems from a depleted force

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2024/09/cleveland-police-make-fewer-arrests-for-drunken-driving-a-drop-some-say-stems-from-a-depleted-force.html

 

 

Completely agree with this. People are flying down side streets to avoid other lines of traffic. Going to a big event in the US is basically a free ticket to drink and drive because cities are just focused on getting cars out of the city. 

 

More commuter rail options plus more enforcement would make RTA a lot of money on game days. 

I used the red line to and from the game yesterday, from Brook Park ironically enough. Went in about 3 1/2 hours prior and left an hour after the end of the game. The red line to/from the west had decent ridership especially on the further away stations, I even got chatting to a guy from Mansfield who leaves his car at Brook Park. The eastbound looked dead though on the way back. Definitely agree with above that there should be a bigger push of the RTA and stronger enforcement of the drunk drivers. It was refreshing to use transit to a sports event, way cheaper, way less stress and hassle than navigating expensive parking and traffic. Even squeezed in a beer and a slice of pizza waiting on things to die down. It's fun seeing all the foot traffic and vibrancy around the stadiums on game day, it even felt like an all weekend event to me with lots of visiting fans and out of towners I seen both Downtown and in Ohio City on Saturday. 

 

ETA: The weekend also reminded me being back in the area how dreary and industrialised Brook Park is. No point repeating all the reasons why but I mean, it's seen much better days.

Edited September 23, 2024Sep 23 by snakebite

12 hours ago, cadmen said:

@Cleburger l'm not talking about a beach here. I'm talking about a park with mature trees, trails, and some kind of natural barrier along the water. Something like Stanley Park in Vanvouver. It can be created quickly and once everything is planted it won't take alot of maintenance dollars either. 

 

Then we can fill in the rest of Burke at our leisure, as is our wont.

You sure trees let alone a shrub would grow on landfill? 

1 hour ago, AsDustinFoxWouldSay said:

You sure trees let alone a shrub would grow on landfill? 

Yes. Parks built on top of landfills are actually surprisingly common. In Cleveland the Metroparks recently opened Brighton Park which is built on top of an old landfill. 

11 hours ago, snakebite said:

I used the red line to and from the game yesterday, from Brook Park ironically enough. Went in about 3 1/2 hours prior and left an hour after the end of the game. The red line to/from the west had decent ridership especially on the further away stations, I even got chatting to a guy from Mansfield who leaves his car at Brook Park. The eastbound looked dead though on the way back. Definitely agree with above that there should be a bigger push of the RTA and stronger enforcement of the drunk drivers. It was refreshing to use transit to a sports event, way cheaper, way less stress and hassle than navigating expensive parking and traffic. Even squeezed in a beer and a slice of pizza waiting on things to die down. It's fun seeing all the foot traffic and vibrancy around the stadiums on game day, it even felt like an all weekend event to me with lots of visiting fans and out of towners I seen both Downtown and in Ohio City on Saturday. 

 

ETA: The weekend also reminded me being back in the area how dreary and industrialised Brook Park is. No point repeating all the reasons why but I mean, it's seen much better days.

Too bad the red line west was shut down last weekend when friends and I were in town for the ELO concert Saturday. The 66R rapid replacement bus left a lot to be desired.

7 hours ago, Ethan said:

Yes. Parks built on top of landfills are actually surprisingly common. In Cleveland the Metroparks recently opened Brighton Park which is built on top of an old landfill. 

The Lakefront Nature Preserve is also a landfill. This is the perfect example of what I would like to see 200 acres of Burke look like in 25-30 years. 

 

Like a Grant Park, with more trees and meadows, along with all of the birds and other species the nature preserve has attracted. 

A good portion of West Creek Reservation in Parma was a landfill.

The thing l love about creating parkland on top of our landfill shoreline is how easy it is. And cheap. Easy to maintain. At least compared to most every other type of development. None of this is rocket science. 

 

Plant it, cluster it and it will grow. In one generation we will have something to be proud of. Everyone loves Edgewater Park now but l grew up in that neighborhood and let me tell you, back then it was neglected, trashy and dangerous. Now look at it! We have a beautiful lake. We have some beautiful parks along it. We can easily and cheaply add to that. While we're deciding what to build on Burke trees and plants can be growing. It's a passive investment that will pay dividends down the road if we just start planting once the airport is closed. 

I think Wendy Park is a good, albeit small sample of what Burke could eventually be if nature is left to do its thing. 

If we are going to put a stadium I really like what is planned for the new Bears stadium. It incorporates the stadium, housing and public spaces/sports fields that are easily accessible, so it will always be used.

 

If we are going for a public use I would love for it to be an attraction that has curated/manicured green areas, a space that has amusement attractions like a Ferris Wheel and other attractions aka I am keeping my dream alive for a Cleveland version of Navy Pier LOL. I wouldn't mind having an outlet mall there with mid rise housing either above or attached in the development. 

20 minutes ago, MyPhoneDead said:

If we are going to put a stadium I really like what is planned for the new Bears stadium. It incorporates the stadium, housing and public spaces/sports fields that are easily accessible, so it will always be used.

 

If we are going for a public use I would love for it to be an attraction that has curated/manicured green areas, a space that has amusement attractions like a Ferris Wheel and other attractions aka I am keeping my dream alive for a Cleveland version of Navy Pier LOL. I wouldn't mind having an outlet mall there with mid rise housing either above or attached in the development. 

Yes we need plenty of destination worthy shiny objects on that land. If done the bluffs above the tracks should become activated all the way to 55th with housing as Chicago, Toronto and Milwaukee. 

11 hours ago, TMart said:

Too bad the red line west was shut down last weekend when friends and I were in town for the ELO concert Saturday. The 66R rapid replacement bus left a lot to be desired.

 

The powers that be at GCRTA seem to honestly think that buses are the same as trains.

 

This is what comes from having a captive audience for so long. 

18 hours ago, TMart said:

Too bad the red line west was shut down last weekend when friends and I were in town for the ELO concert Saturday. The 66R rapid replacement bus left a lot to be desired.

I always take the red line downtown for concerts, and I was shocked that the whole line was down!  I ended up driving down, but would have much preferred to use the Rapid.

7 hours ago, marty15 said:

I think Wendy Park is a good, albeit small sample of what Burke could eventually be if nature is left to do its thing. 

I also think the Coast Guard station could be an amazing place if properly reactivated.  A restaurant, a Lake Erie info center...something!

1 hour ago, Chris314 said:

I also think the Coast Guard station could be an amazing place if properly reactivated.  A restaurant, a Lake Erie info center...something!

Let’s fill this all in with sand and turn it into a beachhouse/restaurant.

4 hours ago, Chris314 said:

I also think the Coast Guard station could be an amazing place if properly reactivated.  A restaurant, a Lake Erie info center...something!

Getting off topic, but there has been movement to do something with this space. 

 

On 2/14/2024 at 3:23 PM, Ethan said:

Cool nugget in the Metroparks Board Meeting for this month, one that lays the building blocks for something very cool in the future. 

 

 

Tldr: The Metroparks is looking to run utilities to the Old Coast Guard Station. 

 

 

Honestly, I feel like the worst thing that could happen to Jimmy Haslam and his Brookpark plans is Cincinnati needing stadium funding at the exact same time. With Hamilton County saying to the state "you can't give Cleveland everything", leads me to believe my original thought, Ohio isn't trying to open pandoras box by giving Cleveland an unprecedented $600 Million dollars (but won't give transit $3 but that's a different story). It would cause chaos imo and to appease everyone I feel that number will be scaled back dramatically. If Cleveland was alone in wanting stadium money Haslam may have gotten away with $400-$600 Million in funding from the state but his timing couldn't have been worse. 

https://www.cleveland.com/browns/2024/09/what-we-know-and-whats-different-about-plans-for-nfl-stadiums-in-cleveland-and-cincinnati.html

Yeah but it may be the best thing for fiscal responsibility (if that word can be used in the sports stadium idiom) and the city of Cleveland.

16 hours ago, cadmen said:

Yeah but it may be the best thing for fiscal responsibility (if that word can be used in the sports stadium idiom) and the city of Cleveland.

Oh yeah that's my point I agree completely. That's why I said the worst thing that could happen to Jimmy, Mayor Bibb is loving this right now.

1 minute ago, MyPhoneDead said:

Oh yeah that's my point I agree completely. That's why I said the worst thing that could happen to Jimmy, Mayor Bibb is loving this right now.

True - but now the new wildcard is the Private Equity ownership option the NFL approved.  Not sure what that will look like but I expect Jimmy to find a way to monetize for his legacy vanity project.

To my understanding the influence will be limited. The groups won't have decision-making power and are limited to 3%-10% in passive equity. 

 

Jimmy and Dee already have access to capital, so they aren't desperate for (at best) a few hundred million dollars that PE firms can provide.

 

Point: Dynasty or Blackstone aren't going to make much difference in the stadium saga.

Not impressed with Allegiant Field. But, it was nice that it was only a 15 min walk to the strip. I am more convinced the new stadium needs to stay downtown.

2 minutes ago, dski44 said:

Not impressed with Allegiant Field. But, it was nice that it was only a 15 min walk to the strip. I am more convinced the new stadium needs to stay downtown.

I liked it overall, but $2bn doesn’t buy you much. I’m also flabbergasted that a new build stadium still has concourses that are too narrow and bathrooms that are too few. 
Getting out as a pedestrian after the game was ridiculous the way everyone gets funneled through a couple of small gates. 

Could be bulls**t.

 

59/41 chance it is.

 

But I just left an event at the Chicago Architectural museum, and an architect (not the speaker) from Oak Park said he's on the Brookpark stadium project, and the relocation is 100% set. He also didn't know how/if financing would work.

 

I didn't dig any further and just ate a bunch of deli meats. That s**t is pure sodium. 

 

Edited October 3, 2024Oct 3 by TBideon

Everything I've heard from the Haslams' side is that they've decided on Brook Park. But the county's disinterest in supporting that decision has thrown a monkey wrench into the financing.

The Haslam’s decision to build in Brookpark - assuming they can put the financing together just tells me that they really don’t  “get” Cleveland.  I’m sure their man concern is their ability to control the parking revenues and whatever else they manage to build out there.
 

But as far as their legacy in this town, they’re rapidly losing  any  remaining good still left with the fans - based on their lousy  football decisions and the teams ongoing lack of success.   And moving the Browns to Brookpark - granted, it’s not a move from the metro area, but if Browns are no longer downtown  - a special part of the fall and winter dynamic  in Cleveland will never be the same. .   
 

The city of Cleveland should start planning immediately concerning what’s going to happen on the current stadium site - we don’t need a couple more  decades with an empty second- class  (or third)  abandoned old  stadium blocking our north coast. 

Edited October 4, 2024Oct 4 by CleveFan

58 minutes ago, CleveFan said:

The Haslam’s decision to build in Brookpark - assuming they can put the financing together just tells me that they really don’t  “get” Cleveland.  I’m sure their man concern is their ability to control the parking revenues and whatever else they manage to build out there.
 

But as far as their legacy in this town, they’re rapidly losing  any  remaining good still left with the fans - based on their lousy  football decisions and the teams ongoing lack of success.   And moving the Browns to Brookpark - granted, it’s not a move from the metro area, but if Browns are no longer downtown  - a special part of the fall and winter dynamic  in Cleveland will never be the same. .   
 

The city of Cleveland should start planning immediately concerning what’s going to happen on the current stadium site - we don’t need a couple more  decades with an empty second- class  (or third)  abandoned old  stadium blocking our north coast. 

We should not trust Jimmy ever since he tried to move the training camp to Columbus. He had a backroom deal he had already set with C-bus leaders and State reps before it leaked. Clueless Jimmy was surprised by fierce and quick blowback. Don't think he has given up - plus growing Central Ohio loves him and gives him whatever he wants. Think about it - does it seem possible to make so many ownership mistakes by accident over such a short period of time?  I don't think he knows we have all seen Major Leagie about the Vegas showgirl owner who sabotaged the Indians in order to trigger league approval move to a new Miami stadium waiting for them?  So keep supporting the Browns players and team and hold Jimmy and NFL feet to the fire to keep the team downtown.  Maybe Dan Gilbert can save us again.

On 9/28/2024 at 9:08 AM, Willo said:

True - but now the new wildcard is the Private Equity ownership option the NFL approved.

I'm not sure how that is going to work either, but local government's have been funding sports teams for decades and have 0 ownership.  I would love to see local public agencies get an ownership stake for their investments.  These deals are always called "public/private partnerships" but they aren't partnerships in reality.  

 

And if anyone thinks public ownership would be a disaster, keep in mind that the Green Bay Packers are 100% publicly owned.  They play in the 2nd oldest stadium and probably the smallest market in the NFL, yet they are the 13th highest valued team ($5.6B) and have been #1 in revenue generated for the last 3 years.  https://en.tempo.co/read/1913292/15-most-valuable-nfl-teams-is-your-team-on-the-list

 

And if I'm a business minded mayor, I'd be much more willing to fund an NFL team if I knew I didn't necessarily have to claw back my entire investment through taxes.  If I knew my City was getting a cut of a sustainable, highly profitable system, I'd be much more supportive of whatever they needed.

12 hours ago, CleveFan said:

The Haslam’s decision to build in Brookpark - assuming they can put the financing together just tells me that they really don’t  “get” Cleveland.  I’m sure their man concern is their ability to control the parking revenues and whatever else they manage to build out there.
 

But as far as their legacy in this town, they’re rapidly losing  any  remaining good still left with the fans - based on their lousy  football decisions and the teams ongoing lack of success.   And moving the Browns to Brookpark - granted, it’s not a move from the metro area, but if Browns are no longer downtown  - a special part of the fall and winter dynamic  in Cleveland will never be the same. .   
 

The city of Cleveland should start planning immediately concerning what’s going to happen on the current stadium site - we don’t need a couple more  decades with an empty second- class  (or third)  abandoned old  stadium blocking our north coast. 

Or a surface parking lot...

3 hours ago, Dino said:

I'm not sure how that is going to work either, but local government's have been funding sports teams for decades and have 0 ownership.  I would love to see local public agencies get an ownership stake for their investments.  These deals are always called "public/private partnerships" but they aren't partnerships in reality.  

 

And if anyone thinks public ownership would be a disaster, keep in mind that the Green Bay Packers are 100% publicly owned.  They play in the 2nd oldest stadium and probably the smallest market in the NFL, yet they are the 13th highest valued team ($5.6B) and have been #1 in revenue generated for the last 3 years.  https://en.tempo.co/read/1913292/15-most-valuable-nfl-teams-is-your-team-on-the-list

 

And if I'm a business minded mayor, I'd be much more willing to fund an NFL team if I knew I didn't necessarily have to claw back my entire investment through taxes.  If I knew my City was getting a cut of a sustainable, highly profitable system, I'd be much more supportive of whatever they needed.

 

You pointed out why there will never be another publicly owned team in the NFL, or likely any professional sports league.  Not because they can't succeed, but because a publicly owned team won't extort the public for newer facilities.  That's a huge part of the pro sports game these days.

6 minutes ago, X said:

 

You pointed out why there will never be another publicly owned team in the NFL, or likely any professional sports league.  Not because they can't succeed, but because a publicly owned team won't extort the public for newer facilities.  That's a huge part of the pro sports game these days.

And the owners have to vote on new owners.   It's a club that certainly the 31 owners that are just billionaire guys would not want to expend to other public ownership groups. 

At the risk of driving this topic into the ditch l'll just say the "TheClub" wants city money involved, wants fan money involved. But they prefer having us as a silent partner. Money sure, opinions no. It's the best of capitalism from a billionaires perspective. 

 

I'll go away now.

2 hours ago, Cleburger said:

And the owners have to vote on new owners.   It's a club that certainly the 31 owners that are just billionaire guys would not want to expend to other public ownership groups. 

 

The Green Bay system was discussed during the hiatus.   It's formally banned, with the Packers grandfathered in.

16 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

The Green Bay system was discussed during the hiatus.   It's formally banned, with the Packers grandfathered in.

 

16 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

The Green Bay system was discussed during the hiatus.   It's formally banned, with the Packers grandfathered in.

Plus it is not 1996 anymore. There is currently little to no NFL criteria to prevent a franchise relocation as was our situation in 1996.  We were lucky to have criteria in place following the middle-of-the-night Colts move to Indy. Art Modell did not meet any of the 10 criteria the NFL put in place. But no matter, the NFL allowed it anyway as good ol boy monopolists do and obviously assumed the story would blow over with no respect for Cleveland.  Luckily the blowback was major and the legal case the city put forward was surpisingly stronger than anticipated.  Unfortunately the mayor then quickly disregarded the strong legal advice and posture and surrendered with the b.s. that he saved the team, colors and history if we waited 3 years.  It was desperate Modell who should have waited 3 years to get an expansion franchise in Baltimore once he took their bribe down payment money on the BWI tarmac so he could reportedly make debt payments - inexplicable debt  (not really) that Art acquired via his "business manager" stepson -all while owning one of the most valuable franchises at the time. Lesson learned - be careful with Jimmy and this current NFL - I can see a quick move approved once the County blocks or at least hinders the illusion of a brook park playground.  The so-called Ohio Modell law to allow competing bids during a 6-month pause is untested.  Also, remember Jimmy already presented and whipped his plans (brook park and Plan B?) with many key Central Ohio Statehouse reps who would support whatever he wants given his popularity in that part of "Ohia" as Jim Rhodes would say.

^I don't disagree that owners will see it this way, but I don't understand why.  Whether it's private equity or public funds, they are talking about selling an ownership stake in return for working capital.  The City of Cleveland has offered about $450M (on top of the real estate btw) because that's probably all they can justify based on the projected tax revenues.  But if an ownership stake allows additional revenue besides taxes to flow to the City, then they'd be able to justify more funding.  It's no different than what private equity firms are going to expect, so I don't see the difference.

 

In fact, since the City can count on increased tax revenues, whereas a private equity firm cannot, they can provide more funding for a lower ownership stake than a private firm would expect.

20 hours ago, CleveFan said:

The Haslam’s decision to build in Brookpark - assuming they can put the financing together just tells me that they really don’t  “get” Cleveland.  I’m sure their man concern is their ability to control the parking revenues and whatever else they manage to build out there.
 

But as far as their legacy in this town, they’re rapidly losing  any  remaining good still left with the fans - based on their lousy  football decisions and the teams ongoing lack of success.   And moving the Browns to Brookpark - granted, it’s not a move from the metro area, but if Browns are no longer downtown  - a special part of the fall and winter dynamic  in Cleveland will never be the same. .   
 

The city of Cleveland should start planning immediately concerning what’s going to happen on the current stadium site - we don’t need a couple more  decades with an empty second- class  (or third)  abandoned old  stadium blocking our north coast. 

Considering a huge majority of browns fans live in the burbs and not even in Cuyahoga County, I highly doubt Jimmy building his playground in Brookpark surrounded by parking will have any dent on his legacy. Half these fans don't spend time downtown, whether it's work or leisure, more than a few days out of the year. I honestly don't think the fanbase would care leaving downtown at all. It's just us few urbanists who are sick of the amount of disinvestment that occurs downtown, who care. 

I do believe the suburban fanbase will care if they have to pay for the playground.  

Unfortunately basically every Browns fan I've talked to irl is excited about the possibility of a dome at Brook Park. I think they'll be disappointed when they're still paying enormous amounts for parking, except then they'll be nothing around to do. (With the possible exception of a small Jimmy's world). 

 

As long as it's not being paid for with public funds though I'm fine with it. The Browns will survive, and I'm sure Cleveland can find better uses for downtown lakefront land. 

Just now, Ethan said:

Unfortunately basically every Browns fan I've talked to irl is excited about the possibility of a dome at Brook Park. I think they'll be disappointed when they're still paying enormous amounts for parking, except then they'll be nothing around to do. (With the possible exception of a small Jimmy's world). 

Very true.  If the fans complained about a beer for $15 at a bar on W 6th, just wait until its $30 in Jimmy's playground. 

7 minutes ago, Ethan said:

Unfortunately basically every Browns fan I've talked to irl is excited about the possibility of a dome at Brook Park. I think they'll be disappointed when they're still paying enormous amounts for parking, except then they'll be nothing around to do. (With the possible exception of a small Jimmy's world). 

 

As long as it's not being paid for with public funds though I'm fine with it. The Browns will survive, and I'm sure Cleveland can find better uses for downtown lakefront land. 

I just think sadly its the wider American mentality, at least if you aren't in the big coastal markets. Look at all the companies recently who have moved out or want out of Downtown. I know some will also come from the 'burbs and move in but at best it just feels like an ongoing battle to replace the lost or combat those who actively want out or might consider their options when their lease expires.

 

The goal for not all of course but many from my own experience is still to own a McMansion in a good school district in the suburbs and drive a big car like an F150, theres a stigma that cities by and large are dirty, unsafe and riddled with congestion (which particularly is so ironic for me) and suburbs are a world of safety and convenience. There isn't as many young people I see and hear with my own eyes and ears of living in middle of the road Midwestern cities who once graduating from college want to move to an urban area. I feel people naively think that all young people want out of their cookie cutter suburbs and into cities. I'm just not seeing that, and I want it as much as anyone on here. At least not in Cleveland or Kansas City. Its a constant battle against the suburbs. I wish this s**t was back in the 80s where it belongs but it isn't.