My contribution.......

 

Cleveland Browns: Is the Owner-in-Waiting Trying to Put a Lid on City Officials? 

By Ken Prendergast (Contributor) on September 19, 2012

 

Northeast Ohio sports fans are abuzz after prospective Cleveland Browns owner Jimmy Haslam III said he would bring in three prominent stadium architectural firms to suggest changes to the city-owned lakefront stadium. He said changes could include putting a roof on the 13-year-old, open-air facility.

 

....But Crain’s Cleveland Business assistant editor Joel Hammond said during a Sept. 19 interview on 92.3-FM The Fan that Haslam was probably trying to be responsive to Polensek, the city’s longest-serving active councilperson (35 years). Hammond said Haslam was probably prepped by Browns general counsel Fred Nance to expect Polensek’s question.

 

....If the architects to be hired by Haslam say the roof is feasible, Haslam's preference of selling the naming rights to the stadium could be a revenue source. For example, Ford Co. paid $40 million over 20 years for Detroit’s stadium. H.J. Heinz Co. paid $57 million over 20 years for Pittsburgh’s. Lucas Oil paid $122 million over 20 years for Indianapolis’. Bank of America will pay $140 million over 20 years for Charlotte’s. And Minneapolis’ new stadium could rake in $15 million per year over 30 years, or $400 million.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1340833-cleveland-browns-is-the-owner-in-waiting-trying-to-put-a-lid-on-city-officials

Not to go too off topic, but the NCAA is contemplating not holding final fours inside of stadiums anymore.  I know its only one event and isnt a deal breaker, but just stating current public knowledge of the Final Four.

 

Interesting, I didn't hear this.  Another possibility that hasn't been mentioned is the Big Ten Championship for football.

Does anyone know if Corna's retractable roof had a solution for the open-end corners or notches in the stadium.  Those would still be open and the cold would come in. I can see this as ok for a football game but for Political Conventions  or Final Four those corners would have to be closed off

Does anyone know if Corna's retractable roof had a solution for the open-end corners or notches in the stadium.  Those would still be open and the cold would come in. I can see this as ok for a football game but for Political Conventions  or Final Four those corners would have to be closed off

 

Yes, those would be enclosed as well using a curtain of solid material. It wouldn't support any weight except its own, so it doesn't need to be too substantial.

50 million to roof CBS. If that is true i say get it done. http://www.wkyc.com/news/article/261916/45/Is-a-dome-even-possible-for-Cleveland-Browns-Stadium

Wonder if he knows about Corna's "suspended roof" concept?

 

Source: Architects Say Adding A Roof Would Be A "Nightmare"

Sep 20, 2012 -- 4:42pm

By: Will Burge

 

When Jimmy Haslam III was asked by the Cleveland City Council on Wednesday morning whether or not he would explore the idea of a retractable roof on Cleveland Browns Stadium, he said that he has three architect firms coming to examine what improvements can be made. The entire city instantly went abuzz at the thought of a roofed stadium on the lakefront.

 

Today, a source inside the Cleveland Browns organization told ESPN Cleveland that one of the architect firms called the project a “nightmare” in a phone conversation. The architects have yet to examine the stadium in person but said the idea of rerouting the entire HVAC system and making system modifications would be a tall task.

 

The source also said that figuring out how to put in new support beams would be an issue. Any shifts or additions to the preexisting beams would cause a change in all levels of the stadium and would also force a face lift of all existing floor plans.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://espncleveland.com/common/more.php?m=49&post_id=5231

The criticism that was made when the stadium was designed if I recall correctly was that even if they didn't want to build a roof at that time, they could have designed the stadium so that a dome could be added later.

^The Browns Stadium project was rushed and it shows.  The only thing they really got right was the capacity (BIG) and sizing the field large enough to be used for international soccer matches.

^I didn't know that fun fact.  Ironic that Lerner couldn't get an international match, when he owns an international soccer team

Actually I am not a 100% sure but I believe the field is too small for the International Soccer. I remember reading about this a few years ago. You would have to check with our soccer experts or with FIFA but the field was fast tracked and does not meet either international or Olympic size requirements.

The criticism that was made when the stadium was designed if I recall correctly was that even if they didn't want to build a roof at that time, they could have designed the stadium so that a dome could be added later.

With changing construction design, materials, and code, it seems silly to assume what you build today would be applicable for a dome/roof designed 20 years later. There is a good chance whatever they built then wouldn't even work for a modern structure today.

Actually I am not a 100% sure but I believe the field is too small for the International Soccer. I remember reading about this a few years ago. You would have to check with our soccer experts or with FIFA but the field was fast tracked and does not meet either international or Olympic size requirements.

 

Not true, the stadium field was built to accomodate international soccer.  How else could CBS have hosted International soccer games in 2010?

 

From the browns website:  http://www.clevelandbrowns.com/stadium/about-the-stadium.html

Playing Field: The field is a Kentucky Bluegrass irrigated field with a sand-soil root zone and an underground heating system containing nine boilers and 40 miles of underground piping. The heating system helps to keep the field from freezing and extends the growing season of the turf. Field has been designed to accommodate international soccer as well, with dimensions of 69 yards by 114 yards.

^The Browns Stadium project was rushed and it shows.  ...

How true.  If they had more time, they could have bought different real estate and placed it where it won't get gale force* winds.

Who wants to sit in the upper deck in January? 

Why doesn't the NFL season start before Labor Day so we don't have to??

 

*Ok, half-gale

Actually I am not a 100% sure but I believe the field is too small for the International Soccer. I remember reading about this a few years ago. You would have to check with our soccer experts or with FIFA but the field was fast tracked and does not meet either international or Olympic size requirements.

 

Not true, the stadium field was built to accomodate international soccer.  How else could CBS have hosted International soccer games in 2010?

 

From the browns website:  http://www.clevelandbrowns.com/stadium/about-the-stadium.html

Playing Field: The field is a Kentucky Bluegrass irrigated field with a sand-soil root zone and an underground heating system containing nine boilers and 40 miles of underground piping. The heating system helps to keep the field from freezing and extends the growing season of the turf. Field has been designed to accommodate international soccer as well, with dimensions of 69 yards by 114 yards.

 

Exactly.  I remember going to USA v Venezuela in 2006 or so.  They have actually only hosted 2 games, that one and USA v Germany in 2010 (Women's)

 

FYI: Here are FIFA's Requirements.  While CBS can and has held international soccer matches, the size of the stadium makes it a bad fit.  Even internationally there are not that many stadiums that are over 60K.  With the proliferation of Soccer Specific stadiums built for MLS teams most future World Cup qualifiers will go to them.  Mostly because those stadiums put the fans almost right on the field.  However, if the USA were to host another World Cup there would be a better chance for CBS to host a game.  Especially since they have real grass (one of the reasons that Seattle, even with their crazy support, wont get a WC qualifier).  So now we just need to go to Zurich and bribe all the FIFA officials we can find. ;)

 

And to steer this back on topic, I agree with the sentiment that a few years ago I was completely against a roof but now a retractable roof is something I'd be open to.

And to steer this back on topic, I agree with the sentiment that a few years ago I was completely against a roof but now a retractable roof is something I'd be open to.

 

Was that intentional? :)

Probably, unless the statement gets retracted.

We should probably put a lid on these puns.

I understand the desire for this project.  As people have noted, the current soul-less Browns stadium was rammed through on the voters, has robbed a giant section of the lakefront for redevelopment and is useful for less than 20 events per year.  Personally, I'd prefer a retractable dome; I gave up the rah-rah craziness of freezing my tuchus off for the Browns during snowy, freezing temps back when I was in my 20s.  And, yes, I'd love to see more events, concerts and other indoor events in our stadium; including, yes, giving Cleveland the chance to host an NCAA Final 4 and a Super Bowl (see the 'we need more downtown hotels' thread)... That crap about football being meant to be played in those elements is .... just that.  Modern fans prefer to watch the games in comfort, especially given today's ticket prices -- if they don't get it at the stadium, they'll get it in their cozy homes or sports bars in front of huge HD flat screens ... That being said, it is the wrong time for this subject to be broached with a horrible, losing franchise in a financially devastated city ... unless Jimmy's going to foot the bill.

I understand the desire for this project.  As people have noted, the current soul-less Browns stadium was rammed through on the voters, has robbed a giant section of the lakefront for redevelopment and is useful for less than 20 events per year.  Personally, I'd prefer a retractable dome; I gave up the rah-rah craziness of freezing my tuchus off for the Browns during snowy, freezing temps back when I was in my 20s.  And, yes, I'd love to see more events, concerts and other indoor events in our stadium; including, yes, giving Cleveland the chance to host an NCAA Final 4 and a Super Bowl (see the 'we need more downtown hotels' thread)... That crap about football being meant to be played in those elements is .... just that.  Modern fans prefer to watch the games in comfort, especially given today's ticket prices -- if they don't get it at the stadium, they'll get it in their cozy homes or sports bars in front of huge HD flat screens ... That being said, it is the wrong time for this subject to be broached with a horrible, losing franchise in a financially devastated city ... unless Jimmy's going to foot the bill.

 

I'd say unless we have a GUARANTEE for one of the marquee events (NCAA, Superbowl or Political Convention) the cost of adding a cover would not return it's investment (much like Detroit did when Ford Field opened).  The size and scale of a stadium is not conducive for indoor events anyway.  If you look at the calendars of the other indoor NFL facilities in the region, you'll see weddings, bar mitzvahs and corporate parties in the smaller party function rooms.  CBS already gets this business.

We should probably put a lid on these puns.

 

Well you can guarantee Cleveland won't get a Superbowl (Pending how the 2014 event goes in New Jersey) as well as a Final four without a climate controlled stadium.

A Geodesic Dome. http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/cleveland_metro/cleveland-company-reveals-geodesic-dome-idea-for-cleveland-browns-stadium

Fine, but don't pin the costs on residents. I think it would take something away from the real experience. They could use this place in the Summer for three months NOW, let alone nine....for an event like World Series of Rock..and they don't. Covering it with glass will suddenly make it more appealing for such?

 

A Geodesic Dome. http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/cleveland_metro/cleveland-company-reveals-geodesic-dome-idea-for-cleveland-browns-stadium

 

To me, that is awful. It's ugly, it's not full weather protection, so no Final Four. Still can't use it during the winter months (football notwithstanding), and I don't think it makes a very strong case for a Super Bowl, which seems to be the driving force behind this discussion. You get a few extra concerts in the summer, maybe, and fans stay dry.

 

Plus, I don't know why, but it makes me feel claustrophobic.

This has been said repeatedly. Even in the summer months, there are some concerts and events that will NOT go to an open air stadium, PERIOD. Its not just because of the snow. Many promoters don't want to take the chance of their event getting rained out either. The Stadium NEEDS a dome. Yes they could use it a bit more than they do now, but as long as its open air its NOT going to get used that much, NO MATTER what time of the year it is. If you're promoting an event that needs something the size of a football stadium, that means you have a significant amount of money on the line. They don't want their event getting snowed out. They don't want it getting rained out. CBS needs a dome.

Super. I'm not anti-dome. I'm anti-THIS-dome.

@AJ23, this dome would be enough to get more use out of it during the winter months. The whole point is to prevent the elements from screwing your show up. Yeah people will still have to dress like they usually would, but they wouldn't get snowed on and they wouldn't get rained on. That's the most important thing when it comes to attracting more events.

@AJ23, And that original reply wasn't to you either, by the way.

We already have a hulk of a building sitting on our lakefront.  No need to make it bigger.  I'm with AJ93..... I'm not anti-dome, but I am anti-this-dome.  I also think a retractable roof is a necessary element.

This has been said repeatedly. Even in the summer months, there are some concerts and events that will NOT go to an open air stadium, PERIOD. Its not just because of the snow. Many promoters don't want to take the chance of their event getting rained out either. The Stadium NEEDS a dome. Yes they could use it a bit more than they do now, but as long as its open air its NOT going to get used that much, NO MATTER what time of the year it is. If you're promoting an event that needs something the size of a football stadium, that means you have a significant amount of money on the line. They don't want their event getting snowed out. They don't want it getting rained out. CBS needs a dome.

 

Not at all true.  There are just not enough bands to fill stadiums anymore.  Those days are gone.  Weather has little to nothing to do with it--in fact most bands would rather play an open air stadium due to superior sound quality. 

I'm pro dome, but I don't know if they would get a return on their investment.  I think two significant changes will happen to the field:

1) new video boards.

2) turf on the field instead of grass.

Both would increase its functionality in terms of bringing more events to the venue.

 

The problem, in my mind, is this stadium is already approaching fifteen years old.  how long would the stadium need to be operational for a 200 million dollar dome to reap profits?  Also, the browns' stadium wasn't built to be timeless.  It is a cookie cutter stadium designed to be quickly built and I'm not sure it's going to be around for a very long time, relatively speaking.

Not a huge fan of the new dome concept. But it they did something between that and the kind of thing you have at Potsdamer Platz in Berlin, then you might have something. Build out some of the office/apartment buildings they envision east and north of the stadium, and have the geodesic dome intersect them at top. Yeah, I know, that's wishing a LOT.

 

http://www.evropskemesto.cz/cms/images/stories/photos_other_cities/pic12.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/PotsdamerPlatz_Vogelperspektive_2004_1.jpg/330px-PotsdamerPlatz_Vogelperspektive_2004_1.jpg

 

^ so true. it might make more sense to just wait and to build an all-new domed stadium elsewhere later. it all comes down to costs and r.o.i.

 

a nice bonus of that plan would be getting that hulk of a stadium off the lakefront faster.

 

I'm pro dome, but I don't know if they would get a return on their investment.  I think two significant changes will happen to the field:

1) new video boards.

2) turf on the field instead of grass.

Both would increase its functionality in terms of bringing more events to the venue.

 

The problem, in my mind, is this stadium is already approaching fifteen years old.  how long would the stadium need to be operational for a 200 million dollar dome to reap profits?  Also, the browns' stadium wasn't built to be timeless.  It is a cookie cutter stadium designed to be quickly built and I'm not sure it's going to be around for a very long time, relatively speaking.

 

Putting turf in will nullify the ability to host international Soccer Matches.  So no World Cup Qualifying (or matches if the WC were back in the USA) or international friendly matches.  While this isn't an actual stipulation, and in fact FIFA does allow for the surface, it is definitely a detractor when choosing a site.  Seattle, where they are absolutely crazy about soccer (sold out CenturyLink Field, about 66K, for a recent match) has FieldTurf mostly due to their weather and that growing grass when it is always wet is darn near impossible.  However when Chelsea came to play an exhibition match this summer they had to bring in a grass field.  Also, when the US Open Cup was looking for a venue for their Championship match it came down to RFK in DC (no need to describe that stadium) and Seattle.  RFK won because they have real grass as their field surface.

 

Just something else to consider, especially if Haslem wants more use in the summer months.  Most friendly soccer matches are played during the summer months.

@Cleburger, that's absolutely true. I've been in the entertainment industry for a decade. I know a ton of promoters. As a general rule, they don't like being in open air stadiums (NYC & other cant-miss markets being an exception). That's not me talking out of my behind. I'm telling you what I know. If a show gets rained out or snowed out, a promoter could lose a lot of money. Not having a dome or a retractable roof absolutely hurts your drawing power. That's a FACT

@tedders55, interesting point about soccer. I'll bring it one step further, if we could ever get a soccer team that would help knock some available dates from CBS.

This has been said repeatedly. Even in the summer months, there are some concerts and events that will NOT go to an open air stadium, PERIOD. Its not just because of the snow. Many promoters don't want to take the chance of their event getting rained out either. The Stadium NEEDS a dome. Yes they could use it a bit more than they do now, but as long as its open air its NOT going to get used that much, NO MATTER what time of the year it is. If you're promoting an event that needs something the size of a football stadium, that means you have a significant amount of money on the line. They don't want their event getting snowed out. They don't want it getting rained out. CBS needs a dome.

 

From a professional point of view this has nothing to do with concert bookings in stadiums.  It's all about $$$$.  Very few Stadium concerts in the Americas are financially successful.

@AJ23, this dome would be enough to get more use out of it during the winter months. The whole point is to prevent the elements from screwing your show up. Yeah people will still have to dress like they usually would, but they wouldn't get snowed on and they wouldn't get rained on. That's the most important thing when it comes to attracting more events.

What the purpose of having a dome, if, I, the guest, is still uncomfortable?

 

This has been said repeatedly. Even in the summer months, there are some concerts and events that will NOT go to an open air stadium, PERIOD. Its not just because of the snow. Many promoters don't want to take the chance of their event getting rained out either. The Stadium NEEDS a dome. Yes they could use it a bit more than they do now, but as long as its open air its NOT going to get used that much, NO MATTER what time of the year it is. If you're promoting an event that needs something the size of a football stadium, that means you have a significant amount of money on the line. They don't want their event getting snowed out. They don't want it getting rained out. CBS needs a dome.

 

Not at all true.  There are just not enough bands to fill stadiums anymore.  Those days are gone.  Weather has little to nothing to do with it--in fact most bands would rather play an open air stadium due to superior sound quality. 

 

Thats partially correct.  The main reasons for not promoting mega stadium tours is Insurance (against the venue and the performers) and security.  The other issue is that many stadiums have state of the art of specific "grass" for their stadium based on their region and mega concerts tear up grass and to replace that grass after a concert is very costly.

 

 

 

 

 

@Cleburger, that's absolutely true. I've been in the entertainment industry for a decade. I know a ton of promoters. As a general rule, they don't like being in open air stadiums (NYC & other cant-miss markets being an exception). That's not me talking out of my behind. I'm telling you what I know. If a show gets rained out or snowed out, a promoter could lose a lot of money. Not having a dome or a retractable roof absolutely hurts your drawing power. That's a FACT

 

That is not a "fact"!

@Cleburger, that's absolutely true. I've been in the entertainment industry for a decade. I know a ton of promoters. As a general rule, they don't like being in open air stadiums (NYC & other cant-miss markets being an exception). That's not me talking out of my behind. I'm telling you what I know. If a show gets rained out or snowed out, a promoter could lose a lot of money. Not having a dome or a retractable roof absolutely hurts your drawing power. That's a FACT

 

I'm intimately involved with the industry.  You can say it's my life.  Tickets are sold in advance.  Usually 6-12 months ahead of the date.  Weather is a small factor in producing a stadium tour but it's impossible to predict.  And only the worst of worst of weather (lighting/wind) will actually cancel a date.  The artist doesn't care if the fans get wet!!!  They stay nice and dry under the roof or in their dressing rooms!    Think I'm wrong?  Here's a quiz for you:

 

1.  Name the top grossing tour of the last decade.

2.  How many of said tours' dates were played indoors (here's a hint--it's a handful)

3.  Can you name a recent stadium show cancelled due to weather? 

4.  What was the last stadium tour you saw routed in the winter in North America?

 

But this thread isn't about producing stadium shows.  It's about a roof on CBS.  IMO any roof added would not attract enough events to warrant the cost.  We'd be better off adding on a "field house" type space next to it to compliment the convention center.

 

 

@Cleburger, that's absolutely true. I've been in the entertainment industry for a decade. I know a ton of promoters. As a general rule, they don't like being in open air stadiums (NYC & other cant-miss markets being an exception). That's not me talking out of my behind. I'm telling you what I know. If a show gets rained out or snowed out, a promoter could lose a lot of money. Not having a dome or a retractable roof absolutely hurts your drawing power. That's a FACT

 

I'm intimately involved with the industry.  You can say it's my life.  Tickets are sold in advance.  Usually 6-12 months ahead of the date.  Weather is a small factor in producing a stadium tour but it's impossible to predict.  And only the worst of worst of weather (lighting/wind) will actually cancel a date.  The artist doesn't care if the fans get wet!!!  They stay nice and dry under the roof or in their dressing rooms!    Think I'm wrong?  Here's a quiz for you:

 

1.  Name the top grossing tour of the last decade.

2.  How many of said tours' dates were played indoors (here's a hint--it's a handful)

3.  Can you name a recent stadium show cancelled due to weather? 

4.  What was the last stadium tour you saw routed in the winter in North America?

 

But this thread isn't about producing stadium shows.  It's about a roof on CBS.  IMO any roof added would not attract enough events to warrant the cost.  We'd be better off adding on a "field house" type space next to it to compliment the convention center.

 

 

 

Holy Smokes!  We agree on something! 

 

@tedders55, interesting point about soccer. I'll bring it one step further, if we could ever get a soccer team that would help knock some available dates from CBS.

 

This has been discussed in other threads but is somewhat relevant here too.  Apparently MLS now requires smaller facilities (20k seats) for new franchises so bringing a regular team to CBS is probably not an option.  A stupid rule, IMO, given the relatively low cost ways you could obscure the upper seating bowl for lower attendance events if visible empty seats are the concern.

 

As for the dome: If a positive ROI were really needed for projects, we wouldn't have CBS in the first place.  Projects like this are for glamor and feel-good stuff like prestige, not about concrete economics. That said, I don't how much there is left in the public till to pay for something like this (or a substantial piece of it) given that the sin tax is maxed out and the convention center/med mart consumed the last discretionary sales tax room.  Presumably a project like this would require a public vote, and who knows how that would come out.

The newest roof concept looks like the set of You Can't Do That on Television.

I've been in the room with some of the promoters when the decision was made. I've worked with several of them in our particular genre. And when a football stadium (CBS in particular) came up, one of the main reasons against it was specifically the lack of a dome or a roof or whatever you want to call it. Many promoters don't want to take the risk. Is it the only reason CBS loses out on some events? No. But it is absolutely one of the leading factors and that IS a fact. Not having a dome or roof hurts the drawing power of that facility. The whole point that I've been making from the beginning of this debate is that the idea that if CBS would just promote a little more that that alone would exponentially increase the days used by the place is just not true. You may get a couple of more dates, but that's it. If you want to increase the drawing power of CBS then it needs a dome or a roof and there's no other way around it. It doesn't have to be this particular dome, but it DOES need a roof or a dome. Without it, CBS will never draw to its potential

@StrapHanger, really? That IS a stupid rule. Don't some MLS teams currently play in football stadiums though? Were they grandfathered in?

I always liked the idea as long as it it retractable.  Fact is, I just never understood how its minimal use durign the year justified the maintenance costs.  Putting on a roof would open up the venue for larger concerts that can't fit into the Q or Wolstein, and which promoters tend to shy away from booking here due to the potential catastrophe of a rainout.  I could also see it being tied into CC and spurring development not only on the port's land to the north, but also increasing the need for more routine waterfront line service and other forms of public transportation heading to that part of downtown

 

THAT's the truth, and the entire point. It doesn't have to be this particular dome proposal, but CBS NEEDS a roof or dome of some kind to increase its drawing power. No way around it.

@StrapHanger, really? That IS a stupid rule. Don't some MLS teams currently play in football stadiums though? Were they grandfathered in?

 

Not my area of expertise, but yes, that was the explanation offered for why many existing teams play in large stadiums.  The original discussion on UO was here: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,7469.280.html

 

 

I've been in the room with some of the promoters when the decision was made. I've worked with several of them in our particular genre. And when a football stadium (CBS in particular) came up, one of the main reasons against it was specifically the lack of a dome or a roof or whatever you want to call it. Many promoters don't want to take the risk. Is it the only reason CBS loses out on some events? No. But it is absolutely one of the leading factors and that IS a fact. Not having a dome or roof hurts the drawing power of that facility. The whole point that I've been making from the beginning of this debate is that the idea that if CBS would just promote a little more that that alone would exponentially increase the days used by the place is just not true. You may get a couple of more dates, but that's it. If you want to increase the drawing power of CBS then it needs a dome or a roof and there's no other way around it. It doesn't have to be this particular dome, but it DOES need a roof or a dome. Without it, CBS will never draw to its potential

 

What promoter passed on CBS because the lack of a roof?   

 

There are probably a lot of other factors too.  Like a tough rent deal and simply awful and expensive stagehands in a market that is not what it once was. 

 

I just checked Pollstar to compare CBS with Ford Field, Heinz Field and Lucas Oil Stadium.  Over the past several years traffic in Ford, Lucas and Heinz were nearly the same (Ford scored a couple more shows due to Kid Rock's affliction to play home-town events).    Ford also had a Taylor Swift, but that is just taking business from other venues as she was playing arenas on that tour and probably would have played 2 Joe Louis or Palace dates.  Both Ford and Lucas oil notched extra events as well with the Super Bowl.  No arguing that would do us some good.

 

It is also interesting to note that promoters have passed on Cleveland for the Kenny Chesney summer outing far more than any of the other venues (and yes, Pittsburgh with its open air configuration hosted just as many as Detroit or Indy).

 

So in summary, if we are talking typical outdoor music event promoters (as the posts on World Series of Rock and other concerts suggests), I don't see a huge disadvantage in having an open air facility, unless you are willing to pit the venues against each other and take business from the Q.  If you add in some of the subcategories of events like monster truck pulls and motocross well then you might further that argument, but those don't draw much in rent or attendees either.

 

There were several artists in the urban genre (I'm not going to say who it was, but if you know urban music, you know that there's a select number of those artists that can do a stadium show so use your imagination on that one). I talked to one of the promoters and asked him specifically about Cleveland. And he specifically told me that they weren't going to do it here because the show would be too big for The Q and the Wolstein and that CBS wasn't an option because of the lack of the roof. In particular (and I will share this), there was a show last year for Cleveland's birthday featuring Drake and Bone. If I recall correctly, it got rained out. It wasn't in CBS, it was behind it or not too far from it at one of the Port docks. Well when it got rained out it was a big mess with a big backlash and a lot of pissed off fans and promoters with egg on their faces. That really spooked the promoters I spoke to. Back to the conversation I had with this particular promoter, that incident was brought up and he told me that he would never bring a show to CBS because of the lack of a roof. He mentioned that the rates for CBS were high as well, but that he wouldn't mind that if there was a roof so that he would "not lose his ass" and have a situation on a much larger scale like they did at the Drake show.

There were several artists in the urban genre (I'm not going to say who it was, but if you know urban music, you know that there's a select number of those artists that can do a stadium show so use your imagination on that one). I talked to one of the promoters and asked him specifically about Cleveland. And he specifically told me that they weren't going to do it here because the show would be too big for The Q and the Wolstein and that CBS wasn't an option because of the lack of the roof. In particular (and I will share this), there was a show last year for Cleveland's birthday featuring Drake and Bone. If I recall correctly, it got rained out. It wasn't in CBS, it was behind it or not too far from it at one of the Port docks. Well when it got rained out it was a big mess with a big backlash and a lot of pissed off fans and promoters with egg on their faces. That really spooked the promoters I spoke to. Back to the conversation I had with this particular promoter, that incident was brought up and he told me that he would never bring a show to CBS because of the lack of a roof. He mentioned that the rates for CBS were high as well, but that he wouldn't mind that if there was a roof so that he would "not lose his ass" and have a situation on a much larger scale like they did at the Drake show.

 

If you're talking straight urban then yes, I would never consider outdoors.  The urban crowd does their hair, wears heels and comes dressed to the 9's.

 

But honestly, I don't know any urban artists that could pull off a stadium show.  Maybe as a package?  And that's still a stretch. 

 

In fact, in the history of the genre I can't think of any pure urban artist that could pull off a stadium show.    There were plenty of crossover groups.  The Jacksons, sure.  Prince?  In his heyday.  Lionel Ritchie?  Maybe in Europe ;)  JayZ had to bring in help from Detroit (and vice versa) for his date in Yankee Stadium.

 

Allow me to quote Snoop "back to the lecture at hand...." 

 

A roof on CBS is not game changing in the concert world.  I'd be more concerned with NCAA and Superbowls, and the corporate-backed concerts that come come with them.

 

There were several artists in the urban genre (I'm not going to say who it was, but if you know urban music, you know that there's a select number of those artists that can do a stadium show so use your imagination on that one). I talked to one of the promoters and asked him specifically about Cleveland. And he specifically told me that they weren't going to do it here because the show would be too big for The Q and the Wolstein and that CBS wasn't an option because of the lack of the roof. In particular (and I will share this), there was a show last year for Cleveland's birthday featuring Drake and Bone. If I recall correctly, it got rained out. It wasn't in CBS, it was behind it or not too far from it at one of the Port docks. Well when it got rained out it was a big mess with a big backlash and a lot of pissed off fans and promoters with egg on their faces. That really spooked the promoters I spoke to. Back to the conversation I had with this particular promoter, that incident was brought up and he told me that he would never bring a show to CBS because of the lack of a roof. He mentioned that the rates for CBS were high as well, but that he wouldn't mind that if there was a roof so that he would "not lose his ass" and have a situation on a much larger scale like they did at the Drake show.

 

If you're talking straight urban then yes, I would never consider outdoors.  The urban crowd does their hair, wears heels and comes dressed to the 9's.

 

But honestly, I don't know any urban artists that could pull off a stadium show.  Maybe as a package?  And that's still a stretch. 

 

In fact, in the history of the genre I can't think of any pure urban artist that could pull off a stadium show.    There were plenty of crossover groups.  The Jacksons, sure.  Prince?  In his heyday.  Lionel Ritchie?  Maybe in Europe ;)  JayZ had to bring in help from Detroit (and vice versa) for his date in Yankee Stadium.

 

Allow me to quote Snoop "back to the lecture at hand...." 

 

A roof on CBS is not game changing in the concert world.  I'd be more concerned with NCAA and Superbowls, and the corporate-backed concerts that come come with them.

 

Jay-Z, Lil Wayne, Nicki Minaj, Drake and a few others. And not to mention a big Summerjam type show like Hot 97 does at MetLife Stadium in NY/NJ. (NYC market being an obvious exception to this dome/no dome debate we're having).

 

Not that a dome would change the game, but a dome would put us IN the game. Without it, we're not even in the game at this point, not even in the conversation.