8 minutes ago, Jenny said:

That was somewhat my point. I don't think the City had to lose them. It seemed the focus was too centered on them staying put at their current location, which didn't work with Haslam's vision. My initial thought at the beginning was relocating them to the Wolstein Center site, which allows Haslam to acquire properties around it for redevelopment. Or the St Vincent Hospital site.

The thing that contradicts that thought process though, is that it was the Haslams that approached the city about reimagining the stadium on the lakefront.

Then, they ghosted the city and popped up in Brookpark!

Edited May 28May 28 by Mov2Ohio

2 hours ago, Jenny said:

I'll go back several months and bring up a basic point. It's shocking to me that the City of Cleveland isn't ecstatic they have the potential to reclaim premium lakefront property for year round revenue generating developments, and sought out a viable option within the City of Cleveland through the land bank, or some othere group to move them to. The fact they want them to remain in place makes very little sense to me. Unless they have zero trust in private development actually occurring due to an extreme lack of interest. If that's the case, that's unfortunate.

It would be super tough to develop anything year-round on that spot, with the cold and wind.

1 hour ago, Mendo said:

I can see the silver lining of getting rid of the huge parking demand on the lakefront. But Cleveland sees it as a competing venue outside city limits that will draw events and dollars from downtown. Long term they should also see it as competition when the Cavs and Guardians ask for a new stadium and see an ocean of parking and related infrastructure in Brook Park.

I'll need to see if I can find the quote, but I believe when the current renovations were bring talked about the Guardians said they wanted to make Progressive Field a "new Fenway" and make it a classic park that will be around for a long time. If that's the case I dont think we'll see the same sprint to a parking lot sea in the future.

The more I think about it, the more I would much rather have the Browns leave the area all together than giving them a penny to move to Brook Park. I am sick of billionaires getting their way at the taxpayer expense. Businesses and people will shift their season tickets to the Cavs and Guardians. I know the 90s were just the perfect scenario where everything went right with the sell outs back when Jacobs field could seat 45k but I have to imagine the Guardians attendance and viewership would go up massively in the region overtime if the Browns left. That in turn could cause the owners to spend more and all that good stuff. The Browns have been nothing but misery aside from a couple of seasons my whole life (born in 90) and them going would be a bummer initially but at least I would be free of the annual torture.

1 hour ago, cle_guy90 said:

The more I think about it, the more I would much rather have the Browns leave the area all together

For those of us who were around in the late 90s, this borders on treason.

The reputational hit the city would take would be tremendous, as would the economic hit for the whole region.

The Browns and the Tribe only overlap 1-2 months.

1 hour ago, E Rocc said:

It would be super tough to develop anything year-round on that spot, with the cold and wind.

Cleveland is a northern climate, waterfront city. It is what it is. Between Toledo and Buffalo, the southern shore of Lake Erie is extremely heavily developed and it is no different than in dozens of cities across the world. I don't see how weather is a factor at all for this site.

1 minute ago, Dino said:

Cleveland is a northern climate, waterfront city. It is what it is. Between Toledo and Buffalo, the southern shore of Lake Erie is extremely heavily developed and it is no different than in dozens of cities across the world. I don't see how weather is a factor at all for this site.

Ikr! I'm sure that was totally the mindset of every developer who built a skyscraper anywhere in coastal Toronto

2 hours ago, MikeyB440 said:

I'll need to see if I can find the quote, but I believe when the current renovations were bring talked about the Guardians said they wanted to make Progressive Field a "new Fenway" and make it a classic park that will be around for a long time. If that's the case I dont think we'll see the same sprint to a parking lot sea in the future.

Ya not to get too off topic, but I think this is a huge point. Harris/Blitzer have already started to buy property Downtown, and view that Downtown real estate development as their way to make more money and have more fans closer to the stadium. KJP mentioned Harris/Blitzer working together with Bedrock on projects.

Progressive is one of the best stadiums in baseball, and should be a stadium that is around for 100 years.

HSG just wants an easy monopoly on parking revenue. They don't seem interested on taking the risk of becoming real estate developers.

2 hours ago, E Rocc said:

It would be super tough to develop anything year-round on that spot, with the cold and wind.

You say this any time the lake comes up. Go to Buffalo - they have tons of outdoor activites in spite of the cold and wind (two full size ice rinks open to the elements!, skating on the Old Erie Canal!), Detroit is bustling in winter, Chicago has people out and about, and other cities do just fine by embracing their climate. Yeah! We live on a windy great lake, but there's no reason we can't embrace it.

There are a handful of days where the wind rolling up E9 is enough to make you duck into a building but that's what warming huts and businesses are for, aka potential development down there.

Edited May 28May 28 by GISguy

16 hours ago, GISguy said:

You say this any time the lake comes up. Go to Buffalo - they have tons of outdoor activites in spite of the cold and wind (two full size ice rinks open to the elements!, skating on the Old Erie Canal!), Detroit is bustling in winter, Chicago has people out and about, and other cities do just fine by embracing their climate. Yeah! We live on a windy great lake, but there's no reason we can't embrace it.

There are a handful of days where the wind rolling up E9 is enough to make you duck into a building but that's what warming huts and businesses are for, aka potential development down there.

I say this every time the Lake comes up because I live right on it, in the section between Edgewater Park and Fairport Harbor where the shoreline breaks sharply to the northeast. I live this.

We get California beach-like sunsets. We also get winter winds directly off the Lake that have been completely unobstructed for 50+ miles.

From Edgewater west it's much milder because unless the wind is coming from nearly due north it's not coming off the lake. Detroit and Chicago are similar. Even Buffalo is not directly exposed to the north winds over the water. Of course Toronto isn't.

With the exception of Bratenhal, the lakeshore towers on the east side (city and suburbs) are much cheaper places to live than the west, despite the views. This is why. It also has a lot to do with what causes lake effect s***.

Winter weather in NE Ohio is much like residential density. While some indeed embrace it, the majority endure it as necessary.

7 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

I say this every time the Lake comes up because I live right on it, in the section between Edgewater Park and Fairport Harbor where the shoreline breaks sharply to the northeast. I live this.

We get California beach-like sunsets. We also get winter winds directly off the Lake that have been completely unobstructed for 50+ miles.

From Edgewater west it's much milder because unless the wind is coming from nearly due north it's not coming off the lake. Detroit and Chicago are similar. Even Buffalo is not directly exposed to the north winds over the water. Of course Toronto isn't.

With the exception of Bratenhal, the lakeshore towers on the east side (city and suburbs) are much cheaper places to live than the west, despite the views. This is why. It also has a lot to do with what causes lake effect s***.

Winter weather in NE Ohio is much like residential density. While some indeed embrace it, the majority endure it as necessary.

Man, your post isn't even internally consistent.

"From Edgewater west it's much milder because unless the wind is coming from nearly due north it's not coming off the lake. Detroit and Chicago are similar. Even Buffalo is not directly exposed to the north winds over the water.

Buffalo is due east of Lake Erie which is where you, correctly, say the wind is coming from off the lake and Buffalo famously gets huge amounts of lake effect snow.

I had asked the mods to unlock this thread so I could post this piece. I thought this was a knockout blow by Larkin....

cleveland

Greater Cleveland business leaders betray most important...

Brent Larkin argues that the Greater Cleveland Partnership’s support for the Haslams’ suburban stadium plan is a profound betrayal of Cleveland’s legacy of public-private unity, prompting a justifi...

2 minutes ago, KJP said:

I had asked the mods to unlock this thread so I could post this piece. I thought this was a knockout blow by Larkin....

cleveland

Greater Cleveland business leaders betray most important...

Brent Larkin argues that the Greater Cleveland Partnership’s support for the Haslams’ suburban stadium plan is a profound betrayal of Cleveland’s legacy of public-private unity, prompting a justifi...

After reading the typical "what the hell does Brent Larking know" social media comments, would hardly call it a knockout blow. Just re-affirms what all of us here are thinking, That this entire project is a grift for Jimmy to get that sweet parking revenue and events poached from downtown.

5 minutes ago, AsDustinFoxWouldSay said:

After reading the typical "what the hell does Brent Larking know" social media comments, would hardly call it a knockout blow. Just re-affirms what all of us here are thinking, That this entire project is a grift for Jimmy to get that sweet parking revenue and events poached from downtown.

I can form my own opinions of an article without needing them justified by others. I thought it was a knockout blow.

I see the "Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio" have endorsed the project. Pretty bottom of the barrel lengths to evidence support for the project. Most cops I've come across even those who work in urban areas are about the worst when it comes to understanding urban living. Most seem to live a very suburban even rural lifestyle, drive pickup trucks etc.

Edited June 3Jun 3 by snakebite

7 minutes ago, snakebite said:

I see the "Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio" have endorsed the project. Pretty bottom of the barrel lengths to evidence support for the project. Most cops I've come across even those who work in urban areas are about the worst when it comes to understanding urban living. Most seem to live a very suburban even rural lifestyle, drive pickup trucks etc.

They just want the off duty overtime, which they’ll get more of when it’s outside of Cleveland and CPPA.

1 hour ago, snakebite said:

I see the "Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio" have endorsed the project. Pretty bottom of the barrel lengths to evidence support for the project. Most cops I've come across even those who work in urban areas are about the worst when it comes to understanding urban living. Most seem to live a very suburban even rural lifestyle, drive pickup trucks etc.

The “FOP of Ohio” and The Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association (CPPA), the vast majority of CDP officers (900+), are two very different distinct organizations.

FOP represents most suburbs.

And the CPPA has not come out in favor of this.

Sin tax showdown: Browns win a skirmish in the battle over maintaining sports facilities

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/sin-tax-showdown-browns-win-a-skirmish-in-the-battle-over-maintaining-sports-facilities/ar-AA1G6g8F?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=1e49883ec31d4b9da5d0afcbbbbe4846&ei=21

12 hours ago, simplythis said:

Sin tax showdown: Browns win a skirmish in the battle over maintaining sports facilities

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/sin-tax-showdown-browns-win-a-skirmish-in-the-battle-over-maintaining-sports-facilities/ar-AA1G6g8F?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=1e49883ec31d4b9da5d0afcbbbbe4846&ei=21

Can someone explain to me why the STATE senate has any say over COUNTY taxes?!? Columbus controlling way too much of Cleveland's decisions. This one i just don't understand, any tax experts out there?

😑

Signal Cleveland

Cleveland to pay Browns $2.6 million for stadium repairs...

The City of Cleveland owes the Browns more than $2.6 million for repairs at Huntington Bank Field — the one on the lakefront.

On 6/6/2025 at 2:44 PM, pglowack said:

Can someone explain to me why the STATE senate has any say over COUNTY taxes?!? Columbus controlling way too much of Cleveland's decisions. This one i just don't understand, any tax experts out there?

The State has been eroding home-rule for years now, next logical step is dictating local taxes.

Cleveland Browns stadium lawsuit: What happened at Friday's court hearing

https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/local/cleveland/cleveland-browns-stadium-lawsuit-city-vs-haslam-sports-group-cuyahoga-county-common-pleas-court/95-c3d4c86a-33b9-4d60-bddf-b396ad63bf56

I'm starting to get worried that this will get tied up in a courts for years in a way that won't be beneficial to anybody. Whether the Browns are moving or staying put, the city and developers can make proactive decisions based on that information to make the best of the situation. However, the longer this stays in a state of limbo, the more nothing can or will happen on the lakefront. Basically I just want this saga to be over, a final decision made so that the city can move forward and start making lemonade with what whatever lemons we are given.

Whatever happens, it does seem unlikely the Browns will play in Brookpark in the 2029/30 season, which means the team would need temporary accommodations somewhere.

Surely it won't be at Browns stadium, unless before then Haslam relents or dies, so all lakefront plans and stadium repurposing should move forward by x date. Why not say 9/9/2027, two years before the 2029 season.

It's not like a few years in limbo will make much of a difference.

Edited 23 hours ago23 hr by TBideon

Thanks again @Ardoonave

Downtown Cleveland won’t miss the Browns

By Ken Prendergast / June 20, 2025

A downtown is a horrible place for a National Football League (NFL) stadium. It’s why half of the 32 NFL teams don’t play their home games at downtown-based venues. And when the Cleveland Browns leave downtown for suburban Brook Park, it will be Downtown Cleveland that gains the most their move, not Brook Park. The reasons for this are many.

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2025/06/20/downtown-cleveland-wont-miss-the-browns/

Of course, in theory, prime downtown real estate isn’t ideal for an NFL stadium.

Downtown Cleveland isn’t short on development opportunities, even with the stadium in the middle of that plot though— Downtown is short on business. And visitors.

Plenty of suburbanites welcome the opportunity to go to Brook Park instead of downtown. For anything. It WILL suck concerts and smaller events.

Ronayne knows a lakefront project like in this rendering is at least a generation away. That’s why he’s fighting. The next Browns owner will be begging the public for a new dome before the lakefront looks like that.

The current stadium site is really not desirable on its own for standalone development IMO. It is cut off from the core of Downtown and some of its surrounding uses aren't the most attractive. It has the Lake and the museums next door but it also has industrial port land, a seldom used airport, an expressway, rail road tracks, surface lots, it is isolated in some ways. Actually sounds very much like Brook Park I jest. It's future success without a stadium is heavily dependent on the Burke land being opened up for alternative uses from my viewpoint. That rendering looks like something out of Sim CIty or Skylines, I think that is a glass half full outlook to say the least. The site remains empty until serious moves are made to close Burke in my opinion unless we are willing to allow it to be carved up to various parties for smaller 5 over 1 developments, and no development is guaranteed, nor do I think that would be a good idea until we have clarity regarding Burke.

Cleveland says Browns violated state law, lease in first courtroom showdown over planned move to Brook Park

Cleveland says Browns violated state law, lease in first courtroom showdown over planned move to Brook Park

15 minutes ago, CLE2BAL said:

The current stadium site is really not desirable on its own for standalone development IMO. It is cut off from the core of Downtown and some of its surrounding uses aren't the most attractive. It has the Lake and the museums next door but it also has industrial port land, a seldom used airport, an expressway, rail road tracks, surface lots, it is isolated in some ways. Actually sounds very much like Brook Park I jest. It's future success without a stadium is heavily dependent on the Burke land being opened up for alternative uses from my viewpoint. That rendering looks like something out of Sim CIty or Skylines, I think that is a glass half full outlook to say the least. The site remains empty until serious moves are made to close Burke in my opinion unless we are willing to allow it to be carved up to various parties for smaller 5 over 1 developments, and no development is guaranteed, nor do I think that would be a good idea until we have clarity regarding Burke.

I think you're right in your assessment of the problem, but wrong in your assessment of what will primarily fix the problem. I'm fully on board with closing Burke, but that's not primarily what's holding this area back. The airport flight restrictions aren't great, true, but your response seems to imply that these areas would function as one development. They are a 13-20 minute walk through a strip of land sandwiches between the shore way and the lake with few remaining development opportunities, these will always function as separate developments.

What's actually holding North Coast Harbor back is that you basically can't get there from downtown as a pedestrian. I mean you can, I have, but it's unenjoyable and doesn't even feel safe. The land bridge, and hopefully a better one than the current design, is what's actually needed. Add a nice pedestrian connection to the downtown core and this area will pop off, even if the airport doesn't close (which is should).

The thing holding this area back is lack of money. The DC Wharf presented similar challenges. Before it was built, hardly anyone went to that area of the city because there was nothing to do and it was hard to reach and isolated by a highway. Surprise, $1B of city and private money later, it’s a great place to be.

Of course, our developers are just trying to get $2M here and there to finish smaller projects, so getting over this hurdle is going to be a big challenge. I’d approach this like the National Mall where space is used as parkland until a development use is needed. No one complains that the DC Mall evolves over generations. We could look at this the same way. We don’t have to just leave it as a giant parking lot. Enjoy it for what it is now and improve over time.

The I-X Center closing is a game changer. Couple that with landing a WNBA franchise, in what is now peak WNBA fan interest, and we’re net positive.

Could Cleveland seek funds from The State to demolish the existing stadium from the unclaimed taxpayer funds? How much money is needed to remove the existing stadium?

10 hours ago, ITakeTheRapid said:

Of course, in theory, prime downtown real estate isn’t ideal for an NFL stadium.

Downtown Cleveland isn’t short on development opportunities, even with the stadium in the middle of that plot though— Downtown is short on business. And visitors.

Plenty of suburbanites welcome the opportunity to go to Brook Park instead of downtown. For anything. It WILL suck concerts and smaller events.

Ronayne knows a lakefront project like in this rendering is at least a generation away. That’s why he’s fighting. The next Browns owner will be begging the public for a new dome before the lakefront looks like that.

I agree. The best path forward for a small market with minimal/no growth like Cleveland would be the developments above, surrounding the existing stadium. We need to put our eggs in one basket, not spread them out even further.

Is there really a threat of the new stadium stealing conventions from the downtown convention center? Downtown is still going to have the hotels, restaurants, walkability. I do believe the new stadium will steal concerts but only huge acts.

6 hours ago, dave2017 said:

Could Cleveland seek funds from The State to demolish the existing stadium from the unclaimed taxpayer funds? How much money is needed to remove the existing stadium?

There is a $20 million reserve in the county's sin tax funds, which can be used for demolition. It's probably not going to be enough. RFK stadium in DC is being demolished for $25 million.

1 hour ago, mu2010 said:

Is there really a threat of the new stadium stealing conventions from the downtown convention center? Downtown is still going to have the hotels, restaurants, walkability. I do believe the new stadium will steal concerts but only huge acts.

None. The only large, uninterrupted floor space in the new Huntington Bank Field will be the field. A football field typically measures less than 2 acres or under 87,120 square feet. Some very small events could be hosted there but that’s it.

I'm a little late to this discussion since Ken submitted his article but l will say l think he's right that the best use of the land wasted on parking lots is NOT for parking on non game days. Fallow parking lots are a huge waste of space.

The only reason l want the Browns to remain downtown is if a new stadium comes with a billionaire owner committing to developing around his new stadium. And not wasting much of that land on surface parking. I can seee the false logic in my position. Any new stadium MUST come with wasted land used for parking by Haslam. Even IF he got behind the lakefront site he was always going to waste much of that prime land on parking he controlled. So, l will finally join the ranks of those living in reality and say "Goodby to a lakefront stadium."

Now for the really hard part. Unless and untill we find another billionaire willing to step up l'm afraid our lakefront will remain a patchwork of little developments that won't produce anything like those nice pictures in Ken's article. In a perfect world yes, removing the stadium and replacing it with new housing and activities is by far the way to go. The only problem is we live in a world of interests competing for development dollars and there just aren't enough to go around. Until that changes l'm afraid our lakefront will remain far less than it could be.

3 hours ago, mu2010 said:

Is there really a threat of the new stadium stealing conventions from the downtown convention center? Downtown is still going to have the hotels, restaurants, walkability. I do believe the new stadium will steal concerts but only huge acts.

The stadium itself? Of course not. Will a $3B+ project with endless parking eventually figure out how to host more stuff? I think so.

Let’s be honest- it’s not a competitive site at all for out-of-towners compared to other domes like Detroit, Indy, and Minneapolis. There are a ton of events that local suburbanites would rather just park in a big lot and come and go. The dome will be configured to hold smaller concerts- and it’ll be a far more modern venue.

If this dome somehow only hosts Browns games and a few big stadium tours the cost of this failure WILL be passed to the taxpayers, one way or another. If the dome and development succeed and pull in smaller events and retail business downtown and other regional retail districts WILL feel the pain.

It might not be a zero sum game but it’s pretty damn close. A dome in Brook Park Ohio isn’t putting Cleveland on the map when most other options have better weather or a dome in a downtown.

Downtown Cleveland has never been short on empty lots or potential.

2 hours ago, KJP said:

There is a $20 million reserve in the county's sin tax funds, which can be used for demolition. It's probably not going to be enough. RFK stadium in DC is being demolished for $25 million.

None. The only large, uninterrupted floor space in the new Huntington Bank Field will be the field. A football field typically measures less than 2 acres or under 87,120 square feet. Some very small events could be hosted there but that’s it.

A lot of these 60s, 70s structures must be filled with things like lead and asbestos surely which adds to the expense in safely demolishing these buildings?

1 hour ago, ITakeTheRapid said:

Downtown Cleveland has never been short on empty lots or potential.

But the lots cannot be developed under current circumstances.

37 minutes ago, snakebite said:

A lot of these 60s, 70s structures must be filled with things like lead and asbestos surely which adds to the expense in safely demolishing these buildings?

Which buildings? RFK Stadium? Sure, but not the current Huntington Bank Field.

36 minutes ago, KJP said:

But the lots cannot be developed under current circumstances.

I’m confused by this. The lakefront site is on a scale unlike anything developed in Cleveland in most of our lifetimes. It’s totally dependent on massive public infrastructure spending for access and preparation. And honestly- the way to do it right is with a huge public park- at least what the city had planned around the stadium. Even once it’s prepped it’s an unproven location a decent walk from the core of downtown.

What lots downtown can’t be developed? Surface parking revenue for half the warehouse district is in the way?

I can’t think of even a single impressive building built from scratch downtown based on market demand since like Flats East Bank- which isn’t looking great. And I know that sounds crazy but City Club was a disaster and other apartments have been atop existing structures. Thank goodness for Sherwin Williams, Playhouse Square, and Dan Gilbert but they are using their own deep pockets.

I hate to sound like a pessimist but as someone who’s been downtown many times a week for the last decade the energy is more like a whac a mole than a constant building.