Indy’s football stadium is not connected to the convention center. The former RCA Dome was, but Lucas Oil is a bit outside of downtown.

 

Last time I was there there was a walkway.    https://www.visitindy.com/indianapolis-indiana-convention-center-lucas-oil-stadium

 

My comment also intended to highlight that they are managed by the same people, so in terms of booking events, they can sweeten the pot by hosting a dinner, etc over at the stadium.

There is no chance the Haslams (or any other prospective Browns owner) would pay for this themselves. I agree that opening up the lakefront would be ideal, but it depends on what the terms would be, and I'm highly doubtful they would be favorable for Cleveland.

 

Meanwhile, if you look closely at the Lucas Oil schedule, it's mostly minor league soccer games and parties in the club level.  The additional events you could potentially host with a mega-dome in Cleveland:

Super Bowl (one time), Big Ten Football championship (once every 5-10 years), Final Four (once), College Football Championship (maybe once), large winter concert (maybe once per year), large convention (maybe once every few years).

Who wants a mega-dome like Jerry's World? I want a retractable roof stadium that allows us to fix what should have never been allowed to happen in 1996. Get that albatross off the lakefront!

^^Honestly, this might come from my inherent CLE inferiority complex, but it would just be nice to get the press from hosting those kinds of events. Just to get our name on the t-shirts. Indianapolis has done a great job with this.

 

"2020 FINAL FOUR - CLEVELAND"

 

Not sure how much that would actually improve our economy or quality of life.

Is there a lakefront master plan anywhere? It seems like there is a lot on the lakefront already with the Rock Hall, Great Lakes Science Center, Voinovich Park/Pier, and the stadium, but what is lacking is connections from downtown. If the Browns stadium goes away, is there a plan in place for its replacement? In the discussion of Burke Airport potentially closing, it doesn't sound like there's been any real thought as to what would replace it if it does close. Has such an effort been undertaken for the Browns stadium? Demolishing a stadium that is less than 20 years old seems like a colossal waste of money and resources. I went to a concert at the stadium last summer, and while getting there and back out was challenging, the actual stadium seemed pretty nice to me. If you're going to spend a billion dollars on a mega project, how about capping the shoreway and railway that separates the city from the lake?

It would be an interesting idea to put a stadium in the flats by gateway but north of lorain/carnegie.  You could share some parking with the Jake and Q, even incorporate an RTA stop down there serving all 3 stadiums into the project.  Could build housing/office/whatever up to the street along huron and ontario ala Casino phase 2 with more parking beneath but also places facing the river.  Room for surface parking underneath the innerbelt and lorain-carnegie. 

Who wants a mega-dome like Jerry's World? I want a retractable roof stadium that allows us to fix what should have never been allowed to happen in 1996. Get that albatross off the lakefront!

 

Let's be honest - Cleveland shouldn't even HAVE an NFL team.  Its ludicrous to compare any potential stadium to that of Dallas, which is a 7 million person MSA that is still seeing rapid growth... 

 

On a forum like this we should be discussing what to do with that land once the Browns are gone and tax payers are no longer burdened with the costs of a structure that hosts maybe 20 events a year

I was gonna ask, is the assumption that they are just gonna bulldoze that entire facility? I feel like they could do something with it in a very “ahead of the curve” way

Interesting. I'm looking forward to see what comes of this. Cautious optimism, if you will. Especially when I've long since given up on seeing a comprehensive Lakefront plan in my lifetime.

 

Let's be honest - Cleveland shouldn't even HAVE an NFL team.  Its ludicrous to compare any potential stadium to that of Dallas, which is a 7 million person MSA that is still seeing rapid growth... 

 

On a forum like this we should be discussing what to do with that land once the Browns are gone and tax payers are no longer burdened with the costs of a structure that hosts maybe 20 events a year

 

There are 32 teams in the NFL. The Greater Cleveland-Akron-Canton MSA ranks 15th in population/media market size. So it's just above the middle of the NFL markets. Plus, the Pro Football Hall of Fame is within its market area. The NFL wants to keep a team in this market. But it needs to be on the right site -- which is the most important issue that many of you are overlooking amongst your emotions.

^I'm surprised to see you're in favor of this KJP[/member] . In a region that is threatening to shut down its rail transit system because it can't afford the cost of new cars or repairs to existing infrastructure, how does it make any sense to spend massive amounts of money on a new stadium for a team that hasn't even sniffed the playoffs in years? The new amtrak station and bridge from the malls can't even get funded, but you're ok with this proposal? Come on, where is the sense of priorities and/or fiscal responsibility?

Anyone care to speculate on the value of the land the Browns are on?

Could a lease (because I don’t think legally that land can be sold) be enough to be considered a significant funding mechanism for a new stadium?

Cleveland totally subsidizes these pro sports franchises as a last ditch effort to remain relevant.  Browns stadium will always be a drain on public resources & poor use of land, regardless where it's located.

 

Comparing our NFL franchise to other warm weather climates like Jacksonville or Tennessee isn't even relevant because they can use an open air stadium so much more than we can.  Or maybe they don't use it anymore but I bet they don't subsidize it the way we do....

^I'm surprised to see you're in favor of this KJP[/member] . In a region that is threatening to shut down its rail transit system because it can't afford the cost of new cars or repairs to existing infrastructure, how does it make any sense to spend massive amounts of money on a new stadium for a team that hasn't even sniffed the playoffs in years? The new amtrak station and bridge from the malls can't even get funded, but you're ok with this proposal? Come on, where is the sense of priorities and/or fiscal responsibility?

 

Serious question, because people keep bringing up the futility of the team; would it matter if the team was Patriots or Steelers level successful when it comes to this argument?

Morale can be theoretically monetized so yes, I'd say team performance has some relevance.

Cleveland totally subsidizes these pro sports franchises as a last ditch effort to remain relevant.  Browns stadium will always be a drain on public resources & poor use of land, regardless where it's located.

 

Comparing our NFL franchise to other warm weather climates like Jacksonville or Tennessee isn't even relevant because they can use an open air stadium so much more than we can.  Or maybe they don't use it anymore but I bet they don't subsidize it the way we do....

 

Actually, most cities subsidize NFL stadiums just like we do.  Source: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19smEPxvpHQE3pByhDDPbyyA-SMdMjF5Y2uk-g_LkMZs/edit#gid=0

 

Over the last 20 years, the American public has spent more than $7 billion dollars to build or renovate NFL stadiums, taking on 46 percent of the total costs of those projects.

 

https://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/nfl-new-stadiums-public-funding-how-much-atlanta-san-diego-minnesota-los-angeles-033116

When it comes to the market size for a pro sports team, the one to focus on is DMA, which comes from Nielsen and is essentially the local TV market.

 

Cleveland is 19th in DMA (or at least it was a year ago). The DMA is 17 counties in Northeast Ohio (not including Trumbell and Mahoning - they have their own)

Cleveland totally subsidizes these pro sports franchises as a last ditch effort to remain relevant.  Browns stadium will always be a drain on public resources & poor use of land, regardless where it's located.

 

Comparing our NFL franchise to other warm weather climates like Jacksonville or Tennessee isn't even relevant because they can use an open air stadium so much more than we can.  Or maybe they don't use it anymore but I bet they don't subsidize it the way we do....

 

Actually, most cities subsidize NFL stadiums just like we do.  Source: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19smEPxvpHQE3pByhDDPbyyA-SMdMjF5Y2uk-g_LkMZs/edit#gid=0

 

Over the last 20 years, the American public has spent more than $7 billion dollars to build or renovate NFL stadiums, taking on 46 percent of the total costs of those projects.

 

https://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/nfl-new-stadiums-public-funding-how-much-atlanta-san-diego-minnesota-los-angeles-033116

 

And here is a Plain Dealer article comparing to peer cities.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/articles/11738938/firstenergy_stadium_lease_bad.amp

 

I completely agree that public financing of sports stadiums is a raw deal for taxpayers, and the $$$ return isn’t there, but to say Cleveland struck a particularly bad deal isn’t fair.

^I'm surprised to see you're in favor of this KJP[/member] . In a region that is threatening to shut down its rail transit system because it can't afford the cost of new cars or repairs to existing infrastructure, how does it make any sense to spend massive amounts of money on a new stadium for a team that hasn't even sniffed the playoffs in years? The new amtrak station and bridge from the malls can't even get funded, but you're ok with this proposal? Come on, where is the sense of priorities and/or fiscal responsibility?

 

Serious question, because people keep bringing up the futility of the team; would it matter if the team was Patriots or Steelers level successful when it comes to this argument?

 

Maybe not from a purely economic sense, but in terms of civic pride, I think performance absolutely matters. What have the Browns 2.0 brought to Cleveland other than misery? They're an embarrassment to the city, and I think they've probably hurt the national perception of Cleveland way more than they've helped to keep it on the map during NFL season. Here in LA, people were saying both Darnold and Rosen dodged a bullet by not being drafted by the Browns, which of course stems from the fact that the team is a perpetual nightmare, but naturally led into some Cleveland digs as well, even on the local news. With nearly identical climates and similar city vibes, that type of stuff just wouldn't be said about Pittsburgh, because the Steelers are successful and respected around the country. Why reward a team that constantly makes the city look like loserville?

Let's be clear here. Emotion is the only justification for keeping an NFL team in your town in the first place, not economics. A couple additional thoughts:

 

1. Any new or majorly remodeled stadium should require SIGNIFICANT dollar contributions from the collar counties. They pay virtually nothing for the privilege of having an NFL franchise in NEO. And since the first stadium was built I believe only Medina, Lake, and Geauga counties have seen a population increase putting stress on Cuyahoga to pay a larger share for a more expensive stadium.

 

2. Who knows what the popularity of the NFL will be like in 10 years. A new stadium in 10-15 years might be throwing good money after bad.

 

3. Let's not let the team's lack of success influence whether or not we should build a new stadium. Build it, or not, based on whether you think it's a solid investment. Because, a perennial Super Bowl team will have at most 2 extra home games -- insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

If you want to see a bad deal look no further than the financing plan the bungals struck with Cincinnati. YIKES.

My understanding is Cleveland got a particularly egregious deal with the new deal, with a host of shenanigans perpetuated by the NFL, Fred Nance, Michael White, and others. That one reporter - was it for the CleveScene? PD? - had some excellent write-ups on the funding, leasing, parking, merchandising, and other arrangements in which the city got majorly F-D compared to other cities in like situations.

Meanwhile in Dallas, AT&T stadium is being paid off ahead of schedule, allowing the city of Arlington to grease the financing of a new Rangers retractable roof park.

 

Jerry Jones originally wanted to build in the city of Dallas, but found the city an unwilling partner.  They probably should have cut a deal with him.  The Rangers could be moving into the city as well. 

^I'm surprised to see you're in favor of this KJP[/member] . In a region that is threatening to shut down its rail transit system because it can't afford the cost of new cars or repairs to existing infrastructure, how does it make any sense to spend massive amounts of money on a new stadium for a team that hasn't even sniffed the playoffs in years? The new amtrak station and bridge from the malls can't even get funded, but you're ok with this proposal? Come on, where is the sense of priorities and/or fiscal responsibility?

 

First, who cares what the state of the football team is? This is about utilizing land in the most effective manner. If the fortunes of a football team were relevant to the decision of where/whether to build a football team, then Three Rivers Stadium would never have been built. If you think the Browns' 20-25 years of woe is bad, the Steelers 35+ years of woe by the late 1960s should have discouraged that stadium's construction.

 

I believe cities/metros can and should learn to walk and chew gum at the same team. Just because a new stadium in a better location is needed, doesn't mean the city has to shut down and become preoccupied with such matters. In fact, the development of our lakefront can and should be a factor in getting more usage out of our rail system and the construction of a multimodal station on the lakefront (or Tower City, if they want it more). Furthermore, a better stadium location can also increase the usage of the rail system, as evidenced by the graphics below.

 

This is a conceptual idea of how either an open-air stadium of comparable size to First Energy Stadium could be sited at the Intermodal Yards. Ditto for Indianapolis' Lucas Oil Stadium. Both stadium images were captured at 4,000 feet above the surface to ensure a comparable scale for both....

 

Intermodal Yards stadium site-FES by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Intermodal Yards stadium site-LOS by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

And even more importantly, what could we do with this??

 

Lakefront without FES-raw by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

That parking garage by the stadium could also play in important role in taking parking demands off of Downtown proper during weekdays or other events if they set it up as a park and ride station with rapid fare or included in the price of parking or redirected the Downtown trolleys to serve it.

And even more importantly, what could we do with this??

 

What's preventing you from doing anything with that space now? FES takes up less than half of the area you've whited out.

 

I believe cities/metros can and should learn to walk and chew gum at the same team. Just because a new stadium in a better location is needed, doesn't mean the city has to shut down and become preoccupied with such matters.

 

 

Needed? The shot you posted looks like a terrible location for a stadium. Surrounded by freeways and industry...that'd make a great impression to visitors. I get it. Stadiums are sexy projects, and everyone loves to dream about the mega project. But 9 times out of 10, stadiums have very little effect on their surroundings, especially ones that are used only a handful of times per year. Of all the things Cleveland needs, though, I really can't think of a lower priority than a new Browns stadium. You all know your city better than me, but I can't get behind demolishing a perfectly fine and nice stadium that's less than 20 years old. It's a waste of money, waste of materials, bad for the environment, and it's unnecessary. Especially without a solid plan in place for the lakefront, this idea seems nonsensical.

And even more importantly, what could we do with this??

 

What's preventing you from doing anything with that space now? FES takes up less than half of the area you've whited out.

 

Yeah, but it's smack dab in the middle of that space and would have a massive impact on any plan to are coming up with for that land. Not to mention, as significant amount of the parking in that area is required to be there because of the team's contract with the city, so that's even more space indirectly taken up by the stadium's location.

 

I believe cities/metros can and should learn to walk and chew gum at the same team. Just because a new stadium in a better location is needed, doesn't mean the city has to shut down and become preoccupied with such matters.

 

 

Needed? The shot you posted looks like a terrible location for a stadium. Surrounded by freeways and industry...that'd make a great impression to visitors. I get it. Stadiums are sexy projects, and everyone loves to dream about the mega project. But 9 times out of 10, stadiums have very little effect on their surroundings, especially ones that are used only a handful of times per year. Of all the things Cleveland needs, though, I really can't think of a lower priority than a new Browns stadium. You all know your city better than me, but I can't get behind demolishing a perfectly fine and nice stadium that's less than 20 years old. It's a waste of money, waste of materials, bad for the environment, and it's unnecessary. Especially without a solid plan in place for the lakefront, this idea seems nonsensical.

 

They're talking about building this 10yrs from now which means the stadium will be 30yrs old, not 20.  Also no details about financing, location, etc. have been announced, so it's probably best to wait and hear the details before jumping to any conclusions.

 

Plans for the lakefront have already been approved and started.  Site 1 of phase 1 is complete, and site 2 of phase 1 is nearing completion.  It helps if you understand the city before chiming in.

 

http://www.gcpartnership.com/fileuploader/webfiles/Cleveland%20Harbor%20View%20Lakefront%20Development%20Presentation-GCP%2017.5.15.pdf

Needed? The shot you posted looks like a terrible location for a stadium. Surrounded by freeways and industry...that'd make a great impression to visitors. I get it. Stadiums are sexy projects, and everyone loves to dream about the mega project. But 9 times out of 10, stadiums have very little effect on their surroundings, especially ones that are used only a handful of times per year.

 

You just contradicted yourself. If a stadium like this doesn't impact its immediate surroundings, isn't that all the more reason to put the stadium in this location and get it off the lakefront??

Since we are wildly speculating, and don.t really know what is being cooked up, how about moving the port to Burke and redeveloping the entire lakefront from the river to North Coast Harbor

I would love to see a design that would realign the stadium with the city.  What if it was turned 90 degrees and became part of the land bridge connecting the lakefront to the malls.

I would love to see a design that would realign the stadium with the city.  What if it was turned 90 degrees and became part of the land bridge connecting the lakefront to the malls.

 

Dee Haslam actually mentions something like that in the article.

Since we are wildly speculating, and don.t really know what is being cooked up, how about moving the port to Burke and redeveloping the entire lakefront from the river to North Coast Harbor

 

Interesting. Could the airport still function in some capacity?

Yeah, but it's smack dab in the middle of that space and would have a massive impact on any plan to are coming up with for that land. Not to mention, as significant amount of the parking in that area is required to be there because of the team's contract with the city, so that's even more space indirectly taken up by the stadium's location.

 

There is already a master plan in place for 18 acres of land north of FES. And much of the land south is highway and railroads. I doubt the lakefront project's success will hinge on the demolition of Browns stadium. If anything it's existence should help Cumberland's project.... right? Stadiums drawing spin-off development is what we're going to hear for the next 10 years.

Since we are wildly speculating, and don.t really know what is being cooked up, how about moving the port to Burke and redeveloping the entire lakefront from the river to North Coast Harbor

 

Interesting. Could the airport still function in some capacity?

 

I think the most accurate answer I can provide is "hell if I know" but just looking at the footprint of the port, and the airport, it looks like there is enough land

 

I believe cities/metros can and should learn to walk and chew gum at the same team. Just because a new stadium in a better location is needed, doesn't mean the city has to shut down and become preoccupied with such matters.

 

 

Needed? The shot you posted looks like a terrible location for a stadium. Surrounded by freeways and industry...that'd make a great impression to visitors. I get it. Stadiums are sexy projects, and everyone loves to dream about the mega project. But 9 times out of 10, stadiums have very little effect on their surroundings, especially ones that are used only a handful of times per year. Of all the things Cleveland needs, though, I really can't think of a lower priority than a new Browns stadium. You all know your city better than me, but I can't get behind demolishing a perfectly fine and nice stadium that's less than 20 years old. It's a waste of money, waste of materials, bad for the environment, and it's unnecessary. Especially without a solid plan in place for the lakefront, this idea seems nonsensical.

 

They're talking about building this 10yrs from now which means the stadium will be 30yrs old, not 20.  Also no details about financing, location, etc. have been announced, so it's probably best to wait and hear the details before jumping to any conclusions.

 

Plans for the lakefront have already been approved and started.  Site 1 of phase 1 is complete, and site 2 of phase 1 is nearing completion.  It helps if you understand the city before chiming in.

 

http://www.gcpartnership.com/fileuploader/webfiles/Cleveland%20Harbor%20View%20Lakefront%20Development%20Presentation-GCP%2017.5.15.pdf

 

Ok, go for it. Cleveland has a shining track record when it comes to chasing the mega project. The east side of the city is crumbling and the transit system is in dire need of assistance, and the amenities that currently are on the lakefront are accessible from one street. But sure, go ahead and build another stadium for the Browns.

I would love to see a design that would realign the stadium with the city.  What if it was turned 90 degrees and became part of the land bridge connecting the lakefront to the malls.

 

The existing stadium would have to be demolished first. There's not enough room to build a new stadium turned 90 degrees and built over the tracks/Shoreway while the existing stadium still stands.

 

If the existing stadium was retained and rebuilt, a land bridge like this could be built with a multi-modal transportation center included in it. The cost for this land bridge/multimodal station was estimated at $125 million 20 years ago.

 

I believe cities/metros can and should learn to walk and chew gum at the same team. Just because a new stadium in a better location is needed, doesn't mean the city has to shut down and become preoccupied with such matters.

 

 

Needed? The shot you posted looks like a terrible location for a stadium. Surrounded by freeways and industry...that'd make a great impression to visitors. I get it. Stadiums are sexy projects, and everyone loves to dream about the mega project. But 9 times out of 10, stadiums have very little effect on their surroundings, especially ones that are used only a handful of times per year. Of all the things Cleveland needs, though, I really can't think of a lower priority than a new Browns stadium. You all know your city better than me, but I can't get behind demolishing a perfectly fine and nice stadium that's less than 20 years old. It's a waste of money, waste of materials, bad for the environment, and it's unnecessary. Especially without a solid plan in place for the lakefront, this idea seems nonsensical.

 

They're talking about building this 10yrs from now which means the stadium will be 30yrs old, not 20.  Also no details about financing, location, etc. have been announced, so it's probably best to wait and hear the details before jumping to any conclusions.

 

Plans for the lakefront have already been approved and started.  Site 1 of phase 1 is complete, and site 2 of phase 1 is nearing completion.  It helps if you understand the city before chiming in.

 

http://www.gcpartnership.com/fileuploader/webfiles/Cleveland%20Harbor%20View%20Lakefront%20Development%20Presentation-GCP%2017.5.15.pdf

 

Ok, go for it. Cleveland has a shining track record when it comes to chasing the mega project. The east side of the city is crumbling and the transit system is in dire need of assistance, and the amenities that currently are on the lakefront are accessible from one street. But sure, go ahead and build another stadium for the Browns.

 

Did you even read my response?  Your panties are in a bunch for no reason.  NO FINANCING DETAILS HAVE BEEN ANNOUNCED YET.  There's no need for you to chime in regarding something you know very little about.

 

I believe cities/metros can and should learn to walk and chew gum at the same team. Just because a new stadium in a better location is needed, doesn't mean the city has to shut down and become preoccupied with such matters.

 

 

Needed? The shot you posted looks like a terrible location for a stadium. Surrounded by freeways and industry...that'd make a great impression to visitors. I get it. Stadiums are sexy projects, and everyone loves to dream about the mega project. But 9 times out of 10, stadiums have very little effect on their surroundings, especially ones that are used only a handful of times per year. Of all the things Cleveland needs, though, I really can't think of a lower priority than a new Browns stadium. You all know your city better than me, but I can't get behind demolishing a perfectly fine and nice stadium that's less than 20 years old. It's a waste of money, waste of materials, bad for the environment, and it's unnecessary. Especially without a solid plan in place for the lakefront, this idea seems nonsensical.

 

They're talking about building this 10yrs from now which means the stadium will be 30yrs old, not 20.  Also no details about financing, location, etc. have been announced, so it's probably best to wait and hear the details before jumping to any conclusions.

 

Plans for the lakefront have already been approved and started.  Site 1 of phase 1 is complete, and site 2 of phase 1 is nearing completion.  It helps if you understand the city before chiming in.

 

http://www.gcpartnership.com/fileuploader/webfiles/Cleveland%20Harbor%20View%20Lakefront%20Development%20Presentation-GCP%2017.5.15.pdf

 

Ok, go for it. Cleveland has a shining track record when it comes to chasing the mega project. The east side of the city is crumbling and the transit system is in dire need of assistance, and the amenities that currently are on the lakefrthe ont are accessible from one street. But sure, go ahead and build another stadium for the Browns.

 

Did you read the article? It's a very, very early discussion of something that may or may not happen. We're talking about something 10 years from now. Also, the city isn't chasing this project. The Browns approached the city and county to ask for their input.  You act as if Cleveland is the only city building stadiums. Cincinnati is about build a 250 million soccer stadium with the city subsidizing 50 million of that. Maybe Cincinnati should put that 50 million into the streetcar. Yeah, I agree, I really don't think the city/county should foot the bill, but nothing in the article indicates that's going to happen.

 

I believe cities/metros can and should learn to walk and chew gum at the same team. Just because a new stadium in a better location is needed, doesn't mean the city has to shut down and become preoccupied with such matters.

 

 

Needed? The shot you posted looks like a terrible location for a stadium. Surrounded by freeways and industry...that'd make a great impression to visitors. I get it. Stadiums are sexy projects, and everyone loves to dream about the mega project. But 9 times out of 10, stadiums have very little effect on their surroundings, especially ones that are used only a handful of times per year. Of all the things Cleveland needs, though, I really can't think of a lower priority than a new Browns stadium. You all know your city better than me, but I can't get behind demolishing a perfectly fine and nice stadium that's less than 20 years old. It's a waste of money, waste of materials, bad for the environment, and it's unnecessary. Especially without a solid plan in place for the lakefront, this idea seems nonsensical.

 

They're talking about building this 10yrs from now which means the stadium will be 30yrs old, not 20.  Also no details about financing, location, etc. have been announced, so it's probably best to wait and hear the details before jumping to any conclusions.

 

Plans for the lakefront have already been approved and started.  Site 1 of phase 1 is complete, and site 2 of phase 1 is nearing completion.  It helps if you understand the city before chiming in.

 

http://www.gcpartnership.com/fileuploader/webfiles/Cleveland%20Harbor%20View%20Lakefront%20Development%20Presentation-GCP%2017.5.15.pdf

 

Ok, go for it. Cleveland has a shining track record when it comes to chasing the mega project. The east side of the city is crumbling and the transit system is in dire need of assistance, and the amenities that currently are on the lakefrthe ont are accessible from one street. But sure, go ahead and build another stadium for the Browns.

 

Did you read the article? It's very, very early discussion of something that may or may never happen. We're talking about something 10 years from now. Also, the city isn't chasing this project. The Browns approached the city and county to ask for their input.  You act as if Cleveland is the only city building stadiums. Cincinnati is about build a 250 million soccer stadium with the city subsidizing 50 million of that. Maybe Cincinnati should put that 50 million into the streetcar. Yeah, agree, I really don't think the city/county should foot the bill, but nothing in the article indicates that's going to happen.

 

It's obvious he didn't read anything before expressing his nonsensical opinion.  He should spend his time worrying about the deal the bungals made when they fleeced Cincinnati for 427mil in addition to yearly maintenance fees.

^ Cincinnati is building a stadium for a team that currently does not have one of its own. There is no discussion of building a replacing a stadium. The soccer stadium is also being funded entirely with private money, though parking facilities will be built by the county. The last I've heard, the city is planning on contributing $35 million for infrastructure improvements. If there was a proposal to replace GABP or PBS, I'd 100% be against that, too. I've been critical of the whole FCC plan, too fwiw. The notion that stadiums are good investments for cities is a lie. If it weren't for the fact that the city could be gaining a professional franchise and the stadium is going to be almost entirely privately funded, I'd be adamantly against that, too.

 

None of the Ohio cities have the luxury of choosing to divert money and energy to stupid projects like replacing new and perfectly fine stadiums. I know this is an early discussion, and that nothing is going to happen imminently. The fact that it's a conversation at all is ridiculous, in my opinion. The fact that a team that has won 1 freakin game out of its last 32 is even talking about a new stadium, and it's being entertained by smart, urban focused people on here is distressing. And yes, I do think performance matters in this discussion. The Browns are an embarrassment to the city of Cleveland and Ohio.

I would love to see a design that would realign the stadium with the city.  What if it was turned 90 degrees and became part of the land bridge connecting the lakefront to the malls.

 

Don't forget, the current stadium was built in this location to re-utilize foundations from the old municipal stadium

 

It's obvious he didn't read anything before expressing his nonsensical opinion.  He should spend his time worrying about the deal the bungals made when they fleeced Cincinnati for 427mil in addition to yearly maintenance fees.

 

lol you're the most defensive Cleveland booster on this forum, and that's saying something. Keep on deflecting and talking about the 'bungles' if that makes you feel better. FYI, the 'bungals' (truly another sad franchise) have beaten the Browns 7 straight times, and 11 out of the last 15 meetings :)

Personally, I’m more embarrassed by the Reds than I am the Browns.  What a disaster of a franchise.

^ Cincinnati is building a stadium for a team that currently does not have one of its own. There is no discussion of building a replacing a stadium. The soccer stadium is also being funded entirely with private money, though parking facilities will be built by the county. The last I've heard, the city is planning on contributing $35 million for infrastructure improvements. If there was a proposal to replace GABP or PBS, I'd 100% be against that, too. I've been critical of the whole FCC plan, too fwiw. The notion that stadiums are good investments for cities is a lie. If it weren't for the fact that the city could be gaining a professional franchise and the stadium is going to be almost entirely privately funded, I'd be adamantly against that, too.

 

None of the Ohio cities have the luxury of choosing to divert money and energy to stupid projects like replacing new and perfectly fine stadiums. I know this is an early discussion, and that nothing is going to happen imminently. The fact that it's a conversation at all is ridiculous, in my opinion. The fact that a team that has won 1 freakin game out of its last 32 is even talking about a new stadium, and it's being entertained by smart, urban focused people on here is distressing. And yes, I do think performance matters in this discussion. The Browns are an embarrassment to the city of Cleveland and Ohio.

 

Again, read the article....!!!!!  It's a conversation started by the Browns. They've had "informal" talks. The words "if" and "possibility" are used a lot in the article. It's possible they just renovate the stadium. Who knows. It's normal for teams to talk about future upgrades of their facility.

Personally, I’m more embarrassed by the Reds than I am the Browns.  What a disaster of a franchise.

 

The Browns never gave Homer Bailey 9 figures.

A word on stadium financing. OK, yes we all saw the John Oliver thing and we all know stadiums are a bad deal. That money could be spent on different projects that would almost certainly have a better return for the city. Personally, as somebody who follows planning and development, I would prefer other things.

 

But in the case of Cuyahoga County's stadiums, we have a voter-approved sin tax that can legally only go towards professional sports venues. Other projects would most likely not have had the same support, unfortunately.

 

The idea that the Browns are swindling taxpayers is a bit misleading, because taxpayers literally voted to give the Browns money. Voters of this county voted to pay for stadiums, then they voted to pay for another stadium, and voted again to renovate those stadiums. And so we get stadiums.

 

Not sure how the infamous Paul Brown Stadium deal was set up and whether or not this concept applies in Hamilton County.

A word on stadium financing. OK, yes we all saw the John Oliver thing and we all know stadiums are a bad deal. That money could be spent on different projects that would almost certainly have a better return for the city. Personally, as somebody who follows planning and development, I would prefer other things.

 

But in the case of Cuyahoga County's stadiums, we have a voter-approved sin tax that can legally only go towards professional sports venues. Other projects would most likely not have had the same support, unfortunately.

 

The idea that the Browns are swindling taxpayers is a bit misleading, because taxpayers literally voted to give the Browns money. Voters of this county voted to pay for stadiums, then they voted to pay for another stadium, and voted again to renovate those stadiums. And so we get stadiums.

 

 

If a basic presentation was made showing how much these stadiums ACTUALLY cost taxpayers and what other opportunities we are missing out to use the land, it would never pass...  beer swilling fans think "oh my gawd!  I can't live without the browns!"

"other opportunities we are missing out to use the land" is the best argument for rebuilding the stadium- elsewhere.  The value of that lakefront land should be thrown into the analysis.  It still may not pan out as a win for Cleveland, but I'd like to look at it from all angles.