I saw this yesterday on channel 3. I know everytime I go past that vacant beast on the lakefront, my stomach sinks with what could have been done. Bob Corna has a plan. If only they could find the money...

 

http://www.wkyc.com/video/player.aspx?aid=22249&bw=

Interesting.  It doesnt look too bad either.

I wonder how this could affect the construction of a new convention center. Maybe the domed stadium could be used for larger events and the current convention center could undego a small rehab so it can be more suitable for smaller conventions.

 

Also, I find it hard to believe that Bob Corna has a meeting with the NFL Commissioner over this. I would imagine that he would need a great deal more political support before this would even be on the radar screen for Tagliabue.

 

Maybe if we get casinos downtown, the revenue they generate could be used to finance this project.

^I think financing would be through sintax with it being a stadium project.

I wonder if this would have to be a heated roof.  I'd hate to design a flat, glass roof that could also support a few feet of snow.  Sounds pricey...and maybe impossible!

I couldn't get the player to work, but is this the same plan that was in the PD a few months back?

Cleveland missed out big by not building the Hexadome. ;)

Don't know why the other thread was locked.

Feel free to merge

 

Corna is speaking with the city council planning committee today.

There is also a web site with a petition that can be downloaded. It is to start petitioning the NFL for the 50th Anniversary of the Super Bowl on condition that there is a dome.

http://www.superbowlforcleveland.com/

 

Architect tries to build support for roofed stadium

Thursday, May 11, 2006

Susan Vinella

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

Putting a roof on Cleveland Browns Stadium is an old idea that architect Bob Corna wants to breathe new life into.

 

He says he has just the carrot to do it: The prospect of Cleveland as host of the 50th Anniversary Super Bowl in 2016.

 

Corna, an architect who helped develop Shooters restaurant and the West Bank of the Flats, wants to pitch the National Football League on Cleveland as the site for Super Bowl L. But first, he will have to show the league that the city has a plan to build an estimated $90 million retractable roof on the city-owned stadium.

 

To devise such a plan - and pay for it - he will need City Council, the mayor and Browns owner Randy Lerner on board.

 

Corna is scheduled to appear today before City Council's Planning Committee. He met Monday with Mayor Frank Jackson, who he said listened but made no commitments.

 

Corna would like council to form a committee to study the retractable roof proposal and to request a meeting with Lerner to discuss it.

 

If he can get their backing, he wants the city to ask Cuyahoga County commissioners to pay for a study that would look at how much revenue an enclosed stadium, which could be used year-round, could generate.

 

Corna said future revenue could help cover a large chunk of the roof's construction cost. The rest, he said, could be paid for by the Browns and with a parking tax, event fees and surcharges on luxury suite owners. He said he has no plans to ask taxpayers to foot the bill.

 

The 59-year-old architect has gone down this path before. More than 20 years ago, he proposed a retractable roof, which he called the hexatron, for a dual baseball and football stadium. The idea got little traction.

 

He said he's back 22 years later to pitch a retractable roof for Browns Stadium because he thinks it can serve as a catalyst for lakefront development, which the city desperately needs.

 

He envisions the year-round facility attracting concerts and other large events and sparking other development.

 

Corna has even created a Web site: www.superbowlforcleveland.com that features a photo of his retractable roof design and a copy of the petition.

 

Mike Polensek, one of council's biggest skeptics, likes the idea and says it's worth the city's attention.

 

"Is Bob Corna a bit of a dreamer? Sure," Polensek said, "but why not listen?"

Thanx for reposting this-It deserves further discussion.

I continue to think this is a no-brainer. There are times in a city's life that they must make the hard decisions. This is not a panacea, it will not solve all of our problems-it is a piece of the puzzle. A city would be negligent if they didnt do everything possible to improve its situation. How can it not decide to make this a year round facility. I would be a little more skeptical if someone like Bob Corna wasnt behind the idea. This guy has done some great projects with very little support, and he seems to have that vision that is so needed in a city filled with negative thinkers. For the small cost of extending the "sintax" which I can't believe has put hardships on anyone, I think it's a win-win project. I know the negative people are getting ready to shoot this down, they will call it stupid and continue to call it a "dome" when its a retractable roof. This is a long shot project-it needs all of the support it can get.

ah yes, the old "look at how much revenue a (insert project here ... like a domed stadium) would generate" idea.  Hey, the stadium is currently there, how much revenue HAS it generated since it was built?  Outside of Browns' games, I rarely see it used.  I could see an argument that covering it will increase its usage, but will it really?  What would go on in a covered stadium?  Trade shows?  Concerts?  Most trade organizations like the IX Center because there's a huge amount of loading docks for their displays, and it's adjacent to the airport, so it's easy to fly in people.  Concerts ... we already have the Q and the Wolstein Center.  How many bands would fill a domed stadium anyway? 

 

Spending $90 million bucks just to hopefully get a Super Bowl is not a good investment, no matter how you look at it.  The Super Bowl isn't going to make this a good return.  Besides, they only periodically have a Super Bowl in a northern city; they generally prefer a warm-weather place in the south or west.  So $90 million would net us one or two Super Bowls at the most.  Frankly, I'd rather see the money go to fix schools, spruce up neighborhoods, increase public transit, and help people in need.  This is just another attempt at some civic self-esteem improvement, though fortunately it's not being spearheaded by the Mayor, who probably also thinks the money would be better invested in Cleveland's neighborhoods.

well the city as ive address in a previous letter needs to start marketing its neighborhoods.  The stadium will go off but there has to be other development to further enhance the project.

 

The needs to be atleast 20 restaurants, retail establishment, with about 1/3 having local flare lined up in the NCH area

There should be atleast one convention oriented hotel

There should be atleast one boutique property

The waterfront line stations must be upgraded to standard subway stations (turnstiles, token both clerks)

There has to be hard campaign to fill the "convention complex" with events that traditionally cleveland DOES NOT go hard after.  gay lesbian, latin, african american, asian & womens, entrepunerial and off the wall/unique events and trade shows.

In addtion, we need leaders from those groups (mentioned above) to step up to the plate in a show of support and BELIEFE IN CLEVELAND to say (to their national counterparts) that Cleveland can host these types of events. 

 

By now way am I saying that we should try to emulate Orlando or Vegas, but we miss our share of large events because of various factors

 

A)  We do not have a central convention facility.  Producers of events currently make little money in Cleveland since the IX center is located in an area with no auxilary services, restaurtans, bars, hotels, transportation.  So when a large group does come to cleveland its a logistics nightmare.  You have to stay downtown then shlep to the airport or you fly in or out without spending a dime in the city!

 

B)  When producers/scouts come to the city for "go sees" they are amazed by the architectual beauty, the cultural assests(university circle), urban events (street fairs, community events, playhouse sq. theatres), the walkable central business district, the amount of high quality & unique restaurants (downtown, OC, Tre, WHD, Flats and Asian Village/Sterling Payne), ONE TRANSFER ACCESS to city center (thank god for the red line), amount of international connections the city businesses have.  however, they don't know until its too late as the City/Convention and Visitor Bureau doesn't have a Public Relation/Communication strategy.

 

c) no hotel diversity.  No big chains downtown, university circle or cool nabes.  As Cleveland has redeveloped neighborhoods, there are not enough major chains in the area to accomodate travelers with diverse taste.  No Westin, W Hotel, Sheraton or 4 Points (starwood brands), No Hilton, Conrad, Doubletree or Homewood suites (Hilton Brands), Lack of luxury presence No Penisula, Four Season, Park Hyatt, sofitel, Fairmount or Omni brands.  Neighborhoods like Ohio City, Tremont, University Circle, Edgewater, Shaker Sq., University Circle, Upper Prospect/CSU, East and West Banks of the Flat {a hotel in the flats would be cash cow!} (are all places that hotels could be added into the mix to make each of those areas a "destination" within cleveland.  Its not that the city cannot support these properties, its that they don't have the feeling they are "wanted" in Cleveland.  I was told that directly from someone in starwood, they are/were interested in putting a W Hotel & Condo in the WHD....they havent heard a word from anyone in @ the WHD or City Hall... go figure!

 

d) even before a crain is up in place there needs to be five layer (local city, regional (NE Ohio), midwest, country wide and worldwide) marketing campaign and "road show" to let people know the city is open for business.

 

e) in the worldwide information are, our businesses need to maker sure they are partnered (via the cvb) into major websites like digital city, city search, ask.com etc.

 

f) major infrastructure company's work together.  for instance, in cleveland you cannot tell someone how to get to point a to point b via public transportation easily.  Say i want to go from Glendale to a restaurant in the WHD without picking the phone and do everything online.  First, we have very few restaurants on www.opentable.com (sidebar - those especially in Cleveland should be suggesting restaurants as they and digital city (and AOL & time warner cable) are partners and want to know what restaurants in cleveland are worth bring on board) I can't book a restaurant, if i do see a restaurant its not partnered with RTA so I can't click a link to tell me what train/bus to easily get me to your location. 

 

RTA should have directions(specific bus routes/lines) on every church, business, hotel, restaurant, bar, night club, etc, in metro cleveland.  its another way to provide a good service and say, "we have a good system".  London and DC are very good with this, its the perfect marriage and easy way to migrate traffic into the system.

 

I can think of other "cross-platiform" improvements relating to the convention center but this is a start.  Its not enough to build it.

 

Based on research my staff has show we have a tier one city (one paper) with bottom level infrastructure in the city core and a first rate venue on the outskirts of the city holding it back from raising the level of potential for the entire region.  this makes us a bad tier 2 location.  Also, pitts, columbus have new centers, (philly, Indi, Detroit, milwaukee have reno'd centers) but dont have nearly spin off suport (except philly) to maintain what we ALREADY HAVE here in cleveland.

^wow, you really went for it!

 

My comment here echoes some of what has already been said.  We (Cleveland) have spent so much money on big projects that have failed us in financial return and spinoff development.  When Corna says they'll ask for no new taxes on ordinary Clevelanders or county residents, he'd better mean it.  But there also needs to be a guarantee for some sort of spinoff development.  There has been nothing built around the stadium that anyone can spend money on.  The science center and rock hall were there already and they, likewise, have done zero as far as offshoot private investment.  Where are the restaurants? The hotels? the luxury apartments?  I think that the $90 million for a project like this should be part of a larger effort to generate revenues for land acquisition/site preparation and port relocation to push the North Coast forward.  If it's gonna fly, that's how it has to get off the ground.  They can't just dump more money into one building and expect the rest to just happen.

It kills me every time I see that stadium there. If I had a long enough handle, I would move that thing south of the Innerbelt. But we're stuck with it there for at least a few more decades.

 

I think the advocates of putting a retractable roof on the stadium need to look at other northern cities' success or lack thereof with drawing non-sporting events to their facilities. What has been their experience? How many non-sporting events have they drawn to it?

 

For more information:

 

http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/

http://www.baseballballparks.com/

 

http://www.eurostadiums.com/ (loads very slowly!)

My comments echo whats already been said. I feel as though the Cleveland Browns Stadium, Rock Hall/Science center, Galleria, Gateway complex, Tower city and the Warehouse district are the "dots", and now money and investment should be spent connecting those dots with retail, restaurants and in general just things people can come to downtown and do. The only "dot" or major attraction that requires tax dollars, that I think should be built is a new larger convention center in downtown. Unless they can come up with a very long list of legitimate events that could be held year round in addition to a Superbowl, they should just spend the money elsewhere.

It amazes me that even in a forum of those who are pro-development, all you have to do is talk about building a sports venue and everybody gets all emotional-talking about money for schools and education and how sports is a waste of money. I heard all of that when gateway was proposed. Money is not going to help the schools, what will help the schools is to find administrators who care more about the kids than holding onto their phony job titles. The last superintendant we had that cared about the kids blew his brains out because he couldnt take the politics involved-but thats for another thread. 

I am all for The Avenue District/The East Bank/And Starks Project. But do I really need 3 more Baby Gaps, 8 more Starbucks and so on. Why do people live in downtown areas? Because they like bad air and traffic? No, they live downtown to be a part of something bigger than life to be near things that they can't find in the suburbs. As a job I go to different cities to work various events. The things we want to see when we get there are not condos and retail, we want to visit the big projects-things you can't see at home.

The reality is we are a cold northern city that needs work (in more ways than one)-we can't afford to turn things down that help us compete. Corna is proposing something with no cost to the tax payer, how can we turn away from that.

It amazes me that even in a forum of those who are pro-development, all you have to do is talk about building a sports venue and everybody gets all emotional-talking about money for schools and education and how sports is a waste of money.

 

I believe that many of the thoughts, on this forum, are related to the results in Ohio after hinging redevelopment efforts on stadium projects.  In Cincy we have put well over $1 billion into the riverfront in the construction of GABP, PBS, and the Freedom Center.  Guess what we have to show for it right now......some surface lots and some dirt/grass lots inbetween the three destinations.

 

It is not that these kinds of developments are bad, its just that it is a bad idea to think that development /redevelopment of a sports venue will turn around an area or 'put your city on the map'.  I love the new stadiums here in Cincy, along with the Freedom Center; however I would much rather see the Banks completed.  This is because an influx of thousands of new residents, new retail, new office tenants, urban parks, and other entertainment options would do a heck of a lot more for a city than what sports venues could ever do (see Detroit).

Why do people live in downtown areas? Because they like bad air and traffic? No, they live downtown to be a part of something bigger than life to be near things that they can't find in the suburbs. As a job I go to different cities to work various events. The things we want to see when we get there are not condos and retail, we want to visit the big projects-things you can't see at home.

 

My brain is tripping over itself trying to figure out how to respond to this.  All I'm going to say now is that I DO live in a neighborhood with a stadium (among other unique "attractions").  It's not why I live there.

 

I'd like to think that my city caters to its residents before it caters to out-of-towners like Mr. Freethink.  If you want an "attraction" geared for tourists, you can always go to Disney World, right?   If, however, Freethink would like to explain how a dome on Browns Stadium will allow Cleveland to compete with cities that are actually creating jobs and wealth, I'd be very happy to entertain him.

While the first message has a link to a video of what the proposed roof on Browns Stadium might look like, I thought it would helpful for those of us here to have a static image to look at and study...

 

^Just out of curiosity, is everything surrounding the Browns Stadium just supposed to represent some random future in-fill development "place holder" when the Port has been relocated? I don't think these additional buildings represent specific building plans I've seen before.

Not to mention the mysterious lake to the east of the stadium...

build it... only if that other stuff is gonna be built too though

 

My brain is tripping over itself

 

Which explains everything.

That looks like a big parking garage along the bluff.  And that street grid looks familiar.  Where did the Shoreway go?

I just dont understand the cost-benefits for a new roof atop the Browns Stadium.  You might gain an additional one at most two more days of use out of the entire year (on average).  Would this really seem economically beneficial to go about retrofitting a stadium for a retractable roof.  If they were to build it in the first place that is one thing...but to add it on later as an after thought is another.  We all know how much it costs to renovate as opposed to initial/new construction.  This just doesnt seems logical financially.

I just dont understand the cost-benefits for a new roof atop the Browns Stadium.  You might gain an additional one at most two more days of use out of the entire year (on average).  Would this really seem economically beneficial to go about retrofitting a stadium for a retractable roof.  If they were to build it in the first place that is one thing...but to add it on later as an after thought is another.  We all know how much it costs to renovate as opposed to initial/new construction.  This just doesnt seems logical financially.

 

THis is the problem...everyone thinks the "roof" "dome" or "covering" relates to the browns.  This is looking at a BIGGER PICTURE!  AND TRYING TO MAKE UP FOR BUILDING THE STADIUM IN A RUSH WITHOUT BUILDING IT AS A MULTI-USE BUILDING FROM THE START   Tying the stadium, which currently has convention facilities to a newly renovated Cleveland Convention Center is a win-win for the city, county and entire region.

 

The convention center along with a covered Cleveland Browns Stadium would then be able to handle the size, type of conventions that the IX center is currently handling in addition with ALL convention related activities in the Central Business District, the "supporting" and "ancillary convention fuctions" sucha s restaurants, retail establishments, hotels, car/limo/public transprtation will immediately see an increase in business therefore benefitting the growing residential population.  With the IX center being out by the airport, nobody in the region makes money.  In addition, we would be able to have simultaneous events and events that make money for producers/organizers that need to showcased in a regions URBAN CORE.

 

LOOK OUTSIDE THE BOX

Where did that little pond to the right of the stadium come from?  I can never understand why people even pay to have these schematics drawn up. 

How many bands tour stadiums in the winter anyways?  The U2's, Stones, Green Day's, and other bands who play stadium shows always build thier tours around the summer months for a reason.  I don't get it.

I would like to see an economic feasability study done before I would commit to supporting a retractable roof.  But, if the study showed that increased business would pay for the roof, and we could secure commitments before building it, it could be worth it (depending on who's paying for it).  Commitments I would need to see before building it would be:

 

1. At least one Super Bowl to be played w/in 10 years, patterned after the deal Kansas City got.  In fact, I would push for two over 30 years.  If we could get the NFL to commit to this, it would have a huge economic impact on the city.  Estimates on the economic impact of a single Super Bowl range from $30 million (on the low side) to $60 million (a conservative high side estimate).  So, one Super Bowl would bring in a benefit at least equal to 1/3 the cost of funding this, two would pay for at least 2/3. 

 

Also, I think a Super Bowl could be a catalyst for reviving the public/private partnership and bringing a focus to everything incredible that is happening downtown.  The idea would be to get everything that is planned done before the Super Bowl, and then use the Super Bowl to bring media attention to the whole of downtown by highlighting the Euclid Corridor, Flats East Bank, Avenue District, hopefully Pesht, and possibly a new convention center, medical mart, and high-end casino.  Not to mention anything else that might happen due to the increased momentum.  It would be a way to get the suburbs behind the city, and to get the region positive publicity nationally.  A Super Bowl is the sort of thing Clevelanders rally around.  Get them involved for the Super Bowl, get them to stay for the incredible incremental growth that you all mentioned above.  I think the intangible and marketing aspects of this could be large.  More so in Cleveland than in other cities that have hosted the event, due to our much needed shot in the arm.

 

2. Get NCAA to commit to at least one, hopefully two final fours.  They bring a lot of attention and economic impact as well.

 

3. Get the MAC conference to move its championship game here.  They already play the basketball event here and are headquartered here.  I think the basketball event is great for downtown, it brings students likely to stay somewhere in the midwest into Cleveland for a few days of partying and having a good time.  The MAC football championship could be an annual event, drawing 30 to 40k per year. 

 

4. Get NCAA to award a bowl game, similar to Motor City Bowl, which would be another annual event.

 

If we can get these commitments, the roof would pay for itself, and have an impact on improving the public/private partnership and psychological outlook of the region.  I think it is at least worth looking into.

speaking of logistics, if you want to use a covered stadium as a convention center, then you need a LOT of loading docks.  Take for example, a show like the Auto Show ... all those displays come in, and are set up in a matter of days (and here I speak from experience, because I've worked for an organization that had a display at the autoshow, so I've been there during load-in and take-out), and it goes smoothly because there are a ton of loading docks at the IX Center.  And that's key because these shows are on a tight schedule; the day after the Auto Show, all the displays are down, and are getting loaded onto trucks to move on to the next city, while cleanup crews are already doing work, and some items are coming in for the following show.  The current convention center has a single driveway that all the trucks have to go down, and then in many cases, you've got to unload some trucks by hand or with forklifts, because there's just not enough loading docks.  How many does the stadium have?  You'd have to add the expense of reconfiguring the place to allow trade shows to load all their stuff into the stadium on very tight schedules.

 

Logistically, it requires not only the open space of the IX Center floor (or in this case, the stadium "floor" ... by the way, the stadium is grass ... so do we have to make it artificial turf or do we have special grass trays that can be rolled in and out to switch it from game to trade show?), but the flexibility for loading and moving the trade show equipment, and the necessary internal workshops and storage for carpeting, chairs/tables, show booths, etc.  Where is the storage at the Stadium for anything but the Browns equipment?

 

And don't forget, the IX Center also has a ballroom for social events, and meeting room space for smaller groups, and the building can be divided up with curtains so you can have several smaller shows going on at the same time.  And there's a lot of parking right there, and easy access to the freeway.  Cleveland Stadium has ... well, a lot of bathrooms, hotdog/hamburger stands (though who wants to trek up from the floor to the upper reaches of the stadium to get a hot dog?), and not a lot of other flex space, though I guess some of the big bars in the building could be turned into classroom/meeting space.  There is the Muni Lot right there for parking, so that's a plus. 

 

I'm sounding like I'm not thinking outside the box ... but this is a case where it sounds EASY to make the stadium a convention-center type of space, but to actually utilize it thusly will require a lot more than just a big roof over the building.  There has to be an actual infrastructure in place to utilize the space as convention/trade-show space.

 

And I really don't believe Corna when he says this can be built without any taxpayer money.  Because this is going to be way more expensive than he predicts (how many big projects like this actually come in on budget or under budget?  They always go over), and what happens if the money runs out half way?  The city would probably have to come in and bail it out.

 

Let's see some serious studies ... would a covered stadium generate enough revenue to make it worthwhile to incur this massive cost?  Study the covered stadiums in Detroit, in Minneapolis and Indianapolis.  Are they hosting enough revenue-generating events?

 

Sure, a domed stadium would look cool ... would it bring anyone to Cleveland?  Would it convince major trade shows to leave Chicago (another cold-weather city, yet they remade Soldier Field without a dome ... because they have the big McCormack Place convention center to handle any-sized event) or Las Vegas to come to Cleveland?

 

Hey, I'm a lifelong Clevelander and Browns fan, but I think a domed stadium is just a big white elephant.  Let's keep adding apartments downtown, and find ways to rebuild the city that don't involve a few key destinations, but that make the WHOLE city a better and more attractive place.

I would like to see an economic feasability study done before I would commit to supporting a retractable roof.  But, if the study showed that increased business would pay for the roof, and we could secure commitments before building it, it could be worth it (depending on who's paying for it).  Commitments I would need to see before building it would be:

 

1. At least one Super Bowl to be played w/in 10 years, patterned after the deal Kansas City got.  In fact, I would push for two over 30 years.  If we could get the NFL to commit to this, it would have a huge economic impact on the city.  Estimates on the economic impact of a single Super Bowl range from $30 million (on the low side) to $60 million (a conservative high side estimate).  So, one Super Bowl would bring in a benefit at least equal to 1/3 the cost of funding this, two would pay for at least 2/3. 

 

Also, I think a Super Bowl could be a catalyst for reviving the public/private partnership and bringing a focus to everything incredible that is happening downtown.  The idea would be to get everything that is planned done before the Super Bowl, and then use the Super Bowl to bring media attention to the whole of downtown by highlighting the Euclid Corridor, Flats East Bank, Avenue District, hopefully Pesht, and possibly a new convention center, medical mart, and high-end casino.  Not to mention anything else that might happen due to the increased momentum.  It would be a way to get the suburbs behind the city, and to get the region positive publicity nationally.  A Super Bowl is the sort of thing Clevelanders rally around.  Get them involved for the Super Bowl, get them to stay for the incredible incremental growth that you all mentioned above.  I think the intangible and marketing aspects of this could be large.  More so in Cleveland than in other cities that have hosted the event, due to our much needed shot in the arm.

 

2. Get NCAA to commit to at least one, hopefully two final fours.  They bring a lot of attention and economic impact as well.

 

3. Get the MAC conference to move its championship game here.  They already play the basketball event here and are headquartered here.  I think the basketball event is great for downtown, it brings students likely to stay somewhere in the midwest into Cleveland for a few days of partying and having a good time.  The MAC football championship could be an annual event, drawing 30 to 40k per year. 

 

4. Get NCAA to award a bowl game, similar to Motor City Bowl, which would be another annual event.

 

If we can get these commitments, the roof would pay for itself, and have an impact on improving the public/private partnership and psychological outlook of the region.  I think it is at least worth looking into.

 

These are things I covered in a letter to the CCA.  But there is so much more.  The city/county schools should also have their district/regional championships in downtown for the various sports or petition to have the stuff moved from Columbus to Cleveland (or whatever the best venue for said sport is regardless of location). 

 

Here are some other things I pointed out:

Create an event like the goodwill games, based and hosted in

 

Also tying the the Greater cleveland sports authority & IMG into the mix and making the location a first class training center atheletic training center for olympic development since we are a two season city.

 

Changing the field to an artificial turf or using a "drop field" and Potential Adding a track & working with the - as track and field is a huge sport in Cleveland.

 

Adding other sports related veneus and/or a field house type building that would have a wide array of sporting activites and can be used indoor and outdoor. Tennis courts, rock climbing walls, since it on the lake have a top notch gym that could be opened on warm sunny days but visable on bad weather/rainy days and winter, volley, badmidint, and aquatic center, bike rentals, roller blade/skate rentals, vespa rentals, gymnastics, ice skating/hockey rinks, horse shoe, soccer, arena football, horse stable, bowling alley, miniture golf, (I'm not trying to emulate chelsea piers but that venue has some componets that would work well) etc..etc..  this way the citizens of cleveland benefit from using the facility.

 

In conjunction with our world class medical facilities and INSURANCE COMPANIES to make cleveland the healthy city in the world and promote excersice throught the state.

 

speaking of logistics, if you want to use a covered stadium as a convention center, then you need a LOT of loading docks.  Take for example, a show like the Auto Show ... all those displays come in, and are set up in a matter of days (and here I speak from experience, because I've worked for an organization that had a display at the autoshow, so I've been there during load-in and take-out), and it goes smoothly because there are a ton of loading docks at the IX Center.  And that's key because these shows are on a tight schedule; the day after the Auto Show, all the displays are down, and are getting loaded onto trucks to move on to the next city, while cleanup crews are already doing work, and some items are coming in for the following show.  The current convention center has a single driveway that all the trucks have to go down, and then in many cases, you've got to unload some trucks by hand or with forklifts, because there's just not enough loading docks.  How many does the stadium have?  You'd have to add the expense of reconfiguring the place to allow trade shows to load all their stuff into the stadium on very tight schedules.

 

Logistically, it requires not only the open space of the IX Center floor (or in this case, the stadium "floor" ... by the way, the stadium is grass ... so do we have to make it artificial turf or do we have special grass trays that can be rolled in and out to switch it from game to trade show?), but the flexibility for loading and moving the trade show equipment, and the necessary internal workshops and storage for carpeting, chairs/tables, show booths, etc.  Where is the storage at the Stadium for anything but the Browns equipment?

 

And don't forget, the IX Center also has a ballroom for social events, and meeting room space for smaller groups, and the building can be divided up with curtains so you can have several smaller shows going on at the same time.  And there's a lot of parking right there, and easy access to the freeway.  Cleveland Stadium has ... well, a lot of bathrooms, hotdog/hamburger stands (though who wants to trek up from the floor to the upper reaches of the stadium to get a hot dog?), and not a lot of other flex space, though I guess some of the big bars in the building could be turned into classroom/meeting space.  There is the Muni Lot right there for parking, so that's a plus. 

 

I'm sounding like I'm not thinking outside the box ... but this is a case where it sounds EASY to make the stadium a convention-center type of space, but to actually utilize it thusly will require a lot more than just a big roof over the building.  There has to be an actual infrastructure in place to utilize the space as convention/trade-show space.

 

And I really don't believe Corna when he says this can be built without any taxpayer money.  Because this is going to be way more expensive than he predicts (how many big projects like this actually come in on budget or under budget?  They always go over), and what happens if the money runs out half way?  The city would probably have to come in and bail it out.

 

Let's see some serious studies ... would a covered stadium generate enough revenue to make it worthwhile to incur this massive cost?  Study the covered stadiums in Detroit, in Minneapolis and Indianapolis.  Are they hosting enough revenue-generating events?

 

Sure, a domed stadium would look cool ... would it bring anyone to Cleveland?  Would it convince major trade shows to leave Chicago (another cold-weather city, yet they remade Soldier Field without a dome ... because they have the big McCormack Place convention center to handle any-sized event) or Las Vegas to come to Cleveland?

 

Hey, I'm a lifelong Clevelander and Browns fan, but I think a domed stadium is just a big white elephant.  Let's keep adding apartments downtown, and find ways to rebuild the city that don't involve a few key destinations, but that make the WHOLE city a better and more attractive place.

 

I think you're missing the point I'm trying to make.  I don't think anyone is saying use CBS as a convention center, they are saying use it in CONJUNCTION with the proposed renovated and expanded CCC on the mall.  As it would be extended north and bridged by a (IIRC) hotel that would connect with CBS. 

 

Doing this would also correct the problem the current center has with its loading docs.

 

in regards to those other cities, in our downtown we have more ancillary support (restaurants, events, etc.) than those cities so bring all convention related activies to our CBD will only make those businesses stronger.

 

and yes, in todays world, people might change as chicago (has no competition) in the midwest and again, I've never said we should look to take over Vegas or Orlando, but a new center in conjunction with CBS would give the region a much need bost as we would now be able to host large scale tour event/trade shows that go to every city BUT cleveland because they (the producers/venders/sponsers/local business) make no (or very little) money at the IX center and DO NOT reach the entire target audience because its not centrally located.  If you dont have a car..you cant get to the IX center...being downtown you don't necessarily need a car, but if you are there for say the international boat show, some people would make a long weekend out of an event like that and stay in town for the night, someone from the region might book 2 nights at a hotel instead of one.  a person from the midwest might stay three days instead of flying in and out since the IX center is right at the airport  all of these people might...see a show...eat a restaurants...go to clubs/lounges/bars....shop downtown...catch a game...since they came into the airport, they might not take a taxi but use RTA sincheckout the adjacent downtown 'nabes....(in the summer) they might check out a lake front or utilize one of the many boats the tours the river and lakefront.  which what???  MAKES THE CONVENTION CENTER A CATALYST TO SPUR OUR REGIONAL ECONOMY.

 

Again, chicago has only benefitted because other cities in the midwest have not thought outside the box...this is a project that on SO MANY LEVELS we can actually show that chicago isnt the only place to do business in the midwest but Cleveland is destination worth bring your business too.

 

I work closely with our trade/convention business and they say how many times can the go to the same city?  People want to try something new.  So there is a market for Cleveland to put its name in the hat...If we execute this properly.  I myself have tried unsuccesfully to get the TW shareholdes meeting in Cleveland and various fortune events and each time...they love the city...but we dont have the capacity to hold those types of events.

 

McCormack place doesn not hold the prestige or Civic pride our CCC does.  Its a national landmark and bring this land mark back (along with the rest of the city) would go along way for future generations

 

It would be grand if Cleveland were able to attract all of these events by simply adding a roof to their stadium...if it were this easy then I'm sure you would have seen it done before, or at least thought of before.  Lets be realistic do you really think that it is easy to get:

 

Super Bowl(s)

Final Four(s)

relocated Bowl Games

massive conventions

conference championships

etc.

 

I would say that a couple of these are doable, but not all...hell Indy and Detroit have had domes for a long time and these cities do not even have all of these events.  It is naive to think that all of these events will flock to Cleveland as soon as they roof off CBS.

^I am being realistic, and Kansas City is trying to get it done right now, it's also a big reason why Seattle's field was built with a retractable roof.  I didn't say that Cleveland would get all of those events, and I never mentioned conventions.  I said that it would be worth it if they could get those events.  But let's go over your list:

 

Super Bowl:  Detroit has gotten two and KC is guaranteed one if they roof their stadium.  Also, Minneapolis has gotten the event.  Indy is currently trying to get a Super Bowl.

 

Final Four: consistently held in cold weather midwestern cities with domes, will be in detroit next year.

 

Bowl games: Detroit has motor city bowl, I didn't say try to get a bowl relocated here, I said see if we could get one.  Maybe we could, maybe we couldn't.

 

MAC championship: they are headquartered here, we should be able to get it.  detroit has it now, along with Motor City Bowl, in which MAC champ plays every year.  It is silly to have them play in same stadium two games in a row. 

 

Etcetera: I didn't mention anything else.

 

There was nothing naive about saying that we should look at what it would cost and who we could get to pay for it, and then looking into whether or not we could secure commitments from the aforementioned organizations.  It is cynical to dismiss it before looking into it.

It would be grand if Cleveland were able to attract all of these events by simply adding a roof to their stadium...if it were this easy then I'm sure you would have seen it done before, or at least thought of before.  Lets be realistic do you really think that it is easy to get:

 

Super Bowl(s)

Final Four(s)

relocated Bowl Games

massive conventions

conference championships

etc.

 

I would say that a couple of these are doable, but not all...hell Indy and Detroit have had domes for a long time and these cities do not even have all of these events.  It is naive to think that all of these events will flock to Cleveland as soon as they roof off CBS.

 

Yes indy has had a dome but detroits (pontiac) dome was in the 'burbs.

 

Neither has what we currently have downtown.

 

As as many posters have said...ther needs to be alot of ground work and commitments BEFORE  a dollar is spent!

In today's PD Tipoff:

 

Which is more likely, Cleveland going to the Super Bowl or the Super Bowl coming to Cleveland?

 

Cleveland City Councilman Mike Polensek said he'll ask his City Council colleagues tonight to support a resolution urging the NFL to consider Cleveland as the site of the 50th Anniversary Super Bowl in 2016. It will also state that the city is considering (though many say it is the longest of long shots) the possibility of putting a roof on Browns Stadium to accommodate a Super Bowl. Polensek says a copy of the resolution will be sent to the NFL.

 

Polensek said he's also crafting a letter to Mayor Frank Jackson requesting that he form an exploratory committee to study the possibility of installing the retractable roof.

Cleveland City Councilman Mike Polensek said he'll ask his City Council colleagues tonight to support a resolution urging the NFL to consider Cleveland as the site of the 50th Anniversary Super Bowl in 2016. It will also state that the city is considering (though many say it is the longest of long shots) the possibility of putting a roof on Browns Stadium to accommodate a Super Bowl. Polensek says a copy of the resolution will be sent to the NFL.

 

Fantastic.  If this is at the top of Polensek's agenda, then that means all the other problems must have been solved.  Congratulations, Cleveland!

I was just in Kansas City on Friday, and they had an interesting column on the whole economic impact thing in the Kansas City Star ...

 

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/sports/14558762.htm

 

Detroit still waiting for Super Bowl economic impact

JEFFREY FLANAGAN

The Kansas City Star

 

You’ve probably seen numerous projections about how much economic impact a Super Bowl has on its host city. Those estimates range anywhere from $200 million to $400 million.  Apparently, Detroit and the state of Michigan are still waiting for that economic impact from the most recent Super Bowl.

 

According to the Detroit Free Press, Michigan’s state sales tax receipts for February and March — the two months when Super Bowl-related sales would have been reported — showed just a 2-percent gain from the receipts from the previous year. That amounts to a paltry $20 million or so.

 

And statewide use-tax revenues from hotels were up just 0.5 percent from the previous year.  Anyone still think we need that rolling roof for a promised Super Bowl?

 

“I’m really not an economist, so I’m not sure how to analyze those figures,” Chiefs chairman of the board Jack Steadman said by phone. “But one thing to keep in mind is that the rolling roof isn’t just solely about the Super Bowl. We’re trying to create a venue that would be available 365 days a year, one of the largest indoor venues in the world. It’s not entirely about one event.”

 

Steadman also suggested that the Super Bowl has intangible effects other than economic.  “I know that the Super Bowl brought that region and the city of Detroit together again,” Steadman said. “There were a lot of problems in that regard before the Super Bowl came.

 

“And you can’t help but wonder what a Super Bowl might do for state-line cooperation here.”  The bottom line, Steadman said, is that there are ample reasons to go after a Super Bowl.  “I know that there are cities lined up all over the country trying to get one,” he said. “And we’re lucky enough, because of Lamar Hunt, to have been promised one. And if we get one, we think we can certainly get two by 2030.”

 

I'm sorry, I just think it's pie-in-the-sky to get those types of activities for a domed-over Cleveland Browns Stadium, and if anyone thinks that the revenue from those "hoped for" events and activities will offset the massive costs of roofing over the stadium (and again, those costs WILL go up as more feasibility and engineering studies/plans are drawn up), I don't think that the hard numbers bear it out.  Sure, go ahead and do the studies (who pays for them?) and see what comes up, but it just doesn't seem that Indianapolis, Minneapolis and Detroit really maximize the use of their domed stadiums, and at least according to the article above, don't see much value in hosting the Super Bowl, other than it makes everyone feel good, like their city is a major deal. 

 

And I really have to wonder ... is covering the stadium and trying to get a Super Bowl really worth the cost, because in the end, it's more about civic self-esteem than about really increasing the quality of life in the city or increasing economic viability.

This is an easy decision. Just ask yourself-does this project make us more competitive as a region when trying to lure events to Cleveland? Your only answer can be Yes. Over the years I have seen so many different projects talked about and re-talked about, until they were talked to death. So many negative attitudes always speaking the loudest. If you believe in this project do your best to spread the positive words about it and don't let those who live in their doom and gloom world continue to be the stronger voice. And GO CAVS!

Well if they do go ahead with this the city and all of the counterpart municipalities in the region  should get behind this, a new convention center (somehow linking the stadium and convention facility) and expanding and renovationg the airport. Then we will have something that could provide a prolonged economic boost to the area even if we never get a superbowl.

I'm sorry, I just think it's pie-in-the-sky to get those types of activities for a domed-over Cleveland Browns Stadium, and if anyone thinks that the revenue from those "hoped for" events and activities will offset the massive costs of roofing over the stadium (and again, those costs WILL go up as more feasibility and engineering studies/plans are drawn up), I don't think that the hard numbers bear it out.  Sure, go ahead and do the studies (who pays for them?) and see what comes up, but it just doesn't seem that Indianapolis, Minneapolis and Detroit really maximize the use of their domed stadiums, and at least according to the article above, don't see much value in hosting the Super Bowl, other than it makes everyone feel good, like their city is a major deal. 

 

And I really have to wonder ... is covering the stadium and trying to get a Super Bowl really worth the cost, because in the end, it's more about civic self-esteem than about really increasing the quality of life in the city or increasing economic viability.

 

I think some people miss the point.  this is NOT about the superbowl or about just covering the stadium.  its about correcting a problem and tying the stadium into the current convention center to make various venues work together.

 

I think that we have to get past people think this is a "magic wand" and again....look at the bigger picture

ts about correcting a problem and tying the stadium into the current convention center to make various venues work together.

 

Of course, that will not matter if the convention center no longer exists in the current location... but who am I kidding, that decision may never come.

I think some people miss the point.  this is NOT about the superbowl or about just covering the stadium.  its about correcting a problem and tying the stadium into the current convention center to make various venues work together.

 

I think that we have to get past people think this is a "magic wand" and again....look at the bigger picture

Exactly.  BVasically, they have figured out that building such a large structure right on the lake that only gets used 8 times a year is not very practical.  End of Story.  It really isn't just about the Superbowl. 

But even after the $90 million is spent on a roof, there's no guarantee that the building will be used any more frequently than it currently is.  That is the point of contention here.  It's a blind bet of a lot of money, and the odds of a payout are very low.  Ask Detroiters how often Ford Field gets used. 

 

If private businessmen want to build this roof, fine.  The public coffers have other needs to address at this time. 

^There is no guarantee in anything in development.  That is why it is considered a "risky business".  There is no guarantee your homes  will sell, or your offices will lease etc.  You really do not seem happy about anything in Cleveland however.  I don't know what you want the private investors to do. 

There is no such thing as a guarantee, but there is such a thing as minimizing risk.  You don't just throw money at a problem and hope for the best.  Cleveland has been doing that for the past 20 years, and the results speak for themselves.  This is why real estate developers typically perform market studies before undertaking a project.  A lot of people seem to be guessing that the building will be used more--where is the market for such a facility?  A good start would be to examine existing convention center / dome setups in St. Louis and Atlanta.  Has anyone done that yet??? 

 

What I want private investors to do is to pay for this thing themselves, if they want/need it so badly.  If this silly roof is going to lead to increased profits and an improved economy as claimed, wouldn't that lead one to believe that public money is unnecessary for this?

 

I'm not happy about much in Cleveland, because it's the same stupid short-sighted bullshit ideas day-in and day-out.  All you have to do is look elsewhere once in a while to see what makes a city work.  Cleveland would rather try the same failed ideas over and over again, though, and the result is the current "urban theme park" that resides on Lake Erie. 

I think this could be a great project if executed properly.  we'd get more use of the stadium, we'd have the same amount of better of convention space that the IX center currently has in a centralized location, a hotel and much needed amenities.  The IX center goes away and the airport can expand to the best of its abilities.

 

Even if there is not "covering" installed, the project should stil move forward.

 

 

everyone seems to agree that the stadium needs to be used more. 

 

i'd like to see some intermediate steps to begin this realization, NOW, while the dome discussion can continue.  there have been numerous problems with using the stadium for other events - the browns don't like it during the season, it doesn't have a track, to open the stadium at all (even just the lower level) requires $$ that most smaller events (high school sports, community events) can not afford.

 

i'd like to see the numbers on the table.  if we can show increased use from 8 to 10 times a year, to 20 times a year without a dome, then i think the dome analysis comes in to show how with expanded convention center, dome, etc., there could be 30 events a year, and oh by the way, perhaps 1 or 2 big events (superbowl, NCAA). 

 

why can't we start using the stadium this summer?  maybe to fully utilize the convention aspects, the field needs covered, but there should be some other events that we can start putting here. 

I think cities need to balance between bold large projects, and fostering smaller, organic growth.  IMHO I think Cleveland still needs to focus on knitting together some to the large project completed last decade, including the stadium.

 

Is it a good investment of money?  Probably, but I think it could become a distraction right now.  I think the city should continue to work toward building the neighborhoods around the big attractions.  Gateway is going great, Euclid Ave is seemingly on track, now we have to look towards the Flats, lakefront (Pesht), Scranton Penn and University Circle.

 

Once that is underway, more residents are in the city, along with associated retail, then the city should start thinking big once again.  A newly remodeled convention center with this stadium roof, moving the port operations west and  moving Burke somewhere else are three big projects I would love to see next.

 

And something else to consider from a design standpoint. To me any thing that can be done to somehow diffuse the look of 70 thousand bright orange seats should be done. I mean does this city have a review panel or were they off the day they decided to approve those seats. And not only did they approve the orange seats-they wrapped the stadium in green tinted glass. Orange and green-only in Cleveland.

Anyone listening to WCPN right now? They've got Bob Corna, Mike Polensek and Tony Brancatelli on talking about the idea, money, economic impact, etc...  it's almost over, though!

I wish that I could have heard it.  I have stayed away from this conversation because I feel that there are so many other variables that would make this project either a great idea or a stupid one.