14 hours ago, MostlyThere14 said:

Would love to see a dome but I think it's important to the vibrancy, and probably economic health, of downtown that the stadium is located there. Hopefully, they're considering some type of structure to help mitigate the elements.

A dome would make the stadium suitable for year round use and events.

A detailed profit-sharing agreement makes life easier for all parties. City/county should propose it, Jimmy/Dee should accept, and all parties benefit from the revenue-generating stadium directly.

 

None of that laughable, bulls**t "oh the hotels, restaurants and parking lot owners do well during game days" justification. 

10 hours ago, freethink said:

Not sure I have seen this rendering before

 

Yeah probably AI but that photo is about 15 years old which is why no Hilton or Convention Ctr.  Not to mention the TT under renovation which was back in the day when Forest City still liked us. And using old photos of Cleveland seems to be a part of every rendering lately.

There was a proposal for a dome around 2002 I think which at the time would have cost $50 million. That’s part of the reason why I don’t buy into the notion that a dome can’t be part of the renovation if they stay put on the lakefront. 
 

Keep it on the lake, put a dome over it. Done.

14 hours ago, dave2017 said:

https://www.cleveland.com/letters/2024/03/why-not-build-new-browns-stadium-on-still-vacant-land-once-offered-art-modell.html

By 

Other Voices

In regards to Browns Stadium (“Build a domed Browns Stadium — and build it away from the lake,” March 17), no one has brought up the original idea Cleveland and Cuyahoga County officials proposed to Art Modell in the late ‘80s. 

When the Gateway project was first conceived, they included Modell to be in on the project. He said they didn’t - that’s a story for another day.

Skip Ad

Officials offered Modell the plot of land diagonally southwest from Progressive Field just on the other side of the Innerbelt at the Ontario Street exit. He refused and the rest is history, but the land is still there, vacant and undeveloped, and still owned by Cleveland. Currently, part of it is used for Progressive Field employees and vendor parking on game days.

It seems to me this would be the perfect location to showcase a beautiful new stadium. Imagine both stadiums illuminated at night and people driving through the Innerbelt right in between the two! This keeps the Browns in downtown Cleveland where they belong and develops a completely empty and void section of the city.

I would hope this option is being discussed between the Haslams and city and county officials.

Joseph Dylyn,

North Olmsted

 

I'm curious why this location isn't getting more attention. As the letter points out, it's been proposed before, and still makes a lot of sense. It's a similar location to @KJP's Broadway proposal, just located closer to the downtown core and the other major stadium's.

 

I know a soccer Stadium has also been proposed here, but I don't think those plans are finalized, and I soccer still doesn't have anywhere near the cultural leverage of football (in the USA) and I can't see it going to soccer if there's competition, even if soccer had first bid. 

 

I guess there's some added difficulty in building over tracks, but given how expensive a new stadium will be regardless, I can't see it as being ultimately that big of a deal. Is that the only issue? The city view this location as already having been rejected? Are there other things I'm not thinking about? 

 

Browns stadium likely going to Brook Park, if…

By Ken Prendergast / March 26, 2024

 

NEOtrans has learned that the Cleveland Browns and their owners, the Haslam Sports Group, want several things from their stadium over the next 30 years that the City of Cleveland appears unwilling to give them. That includes a dome that adds another $1 billion-plus to the stadium’s cost and control over revenues from parking and a ballpark village development.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2024/03/26/browns-stadium-likely-going-to-brook-park-if/

I agree with Tom Chema.  And if the post office site isn't feasible, surely there must be other sites within Cleveland.  How about the Transport Road site that was being considered for the new jail?  Or the site of the demolished CEI/First Energy plant near Gordon Park?

 

Edited March 26, 20241 yr by LibertyBlvd

If the Haslams are looking for additional revenue through development opportunities why not offer the development rights to the current stadium location. I think Ken has said in the past the city isn't able to sell this land, but what if the city was to lease the land to the Haslams for $1 for 30 years in return for keeping the stadium in Cleveland (the post office site) and reducing the public's share of the expense? 

13 hours ago, CLEmuppet said:

Well a dome sure would be transformative for Brookpark. 
 

It’s a decision that may please the suburban based, drive-to-the-game Browns fans but wouldn’t do much for promoting the city. What a terrible location for bigger national events- Brookpark OH vs all the other regional downtown domes. Heck, even for all the visiting NFL fans it’d be a bummer. 

 

I know Haslam Sports Group is aware of this, too. It's much easier for Atlanta to win a Final Four over Houston now, given the proximity to commercial activity and hotels. That's a key focus. 

This is not gamesmanship and a leverage game by the Haslams.  Follow the money everybody - the long term potential of a state of the art domed stadium that could eventually produce a

billion-dollar  profit for the Haslam estate is in Brookpark - where they will essentially control everything -  including hotels, restaurants and shops not to mention the parking. 
  The model for this plan is already established in many other NFL markets and the owners don’t care what their stadiums are next to - think Giants Stadium in the New Jersey Meadowlands, for example   

 The Haslams will probably attempt to make or have  a deal with the NFL to bring one Super Bowl to “Cleveland” for their contribution to the leagues infrastructure and they will bring more national-level events to the area.  Powerful inducements. 
 A special atmosphere and tradition  that has existed for 75 some years between downtown Cleveland and the Browns will be forever lost - but obviously, the Haslams don’t care about that. 
  And if this all happens, we go back to square one yet again on the downtown lakefront plan, the land bridge and what happens with an empty stadium and the land underneath it on our lakefront. 
 I will mourn the loss of the fantastic atmosphere downtown on football Sundays but I don’t see the path that the city has to stop the Haslams plan.  Sure hope I’m wrong. 

This is a risk to Downtown beyond losing the football games, it's another super dooper mixed use suburban district who will need to recruit other big tenants to survive and it will just spread the region further thin. This isn't Atlanta or Dallas. I'd love to see the economic case behind this as every single other ballpark village in the country has either more than one anchor tenant or has nearby major uses which drive traffic to them and this is football which has a quarter of the games of NBA/NHL and 1/8 of MLB home games. If this is more than just bluster like the Chicago Bears with Arlington Heights. If it's real not one penny of public money at any level should go towards this. 

 

And in terms of neutral events they are touting with the dome I'm not sure what they attract in suburban Cleveland. Maybe an Ohio State or a mid level college football game here and there? They aren't getting Final Fours, Superbowls or Wrestlemanias. You need the walkable hotel and event space nevermind the climate. 

Edited March 26, 20241 yr by snakebite

Sprawl bad in a city with a growing population.

 

Sprawl REALLY bad in a city not growing in population.

 

We already have enough entertainment nodes. But every time a new area gets popular it just cannibalizes existing places. One of the things I hate about those crowded fast growing sun-belt cities is how huge, spreadout and yet they still have traffic from hell. The only thing worse is a spread out city with a few people at this place, a few at that place. The Flats is a very cool and uniquely Cleveland but it's sad to see a lot of the bars, restaurants and boardwalk mostly empty on a beautiful day. Get back to me in a couple of decades when climate change fills up Cleveland. Until then, keep it tight. 

 

 

In my opinion good luck building any type of "Ballpark Village" in the Brook park location. Imagine trying to get developers to sink millions into new apartment/mix use buildings not close to anything other than a loud busy airport. Imagine trying to rent out those apartments or restaurants.  "Hey you guys will be in a vibrant busy neighborhood 10 days out of the year!! But have fun filling your restaurant seats the other 355 days. Not the most accessible drive to this location especially weekdays with all that traffic on those highways. 

3 minutes ago, dwolfi01 said:

In my opinion good luck building any type of "Ballpark Village" in the Brook park location. Imagine trying to get developers to sink millions into new apartment/mix use buildings not close to anything other than a loud busy airport. Imagine trying to rent out those apartments or restaurants.  "Hey you guys will be in a vibrant busy neighborhood 10 days out of the year!! But have fun filling your restaurant seats the other 355 days. Not the most accessible drive to this location especially weekdays with all that traffic on those highways. 

 

Hate to play devil's advocate but plenty of developments exist around apartments in other cities. Crocker Park was woods ~20 years ago, Pinecrest was a residential neighborhood <10 years ago, people live above/in both.

6 minutes ago, GISguy said:

 

Hate to play devil's advocate but plenty of developments exist around apartments in other cities. Crocker Park was woods ~20 years ago, Pinecrest was a residential neighborhood <10 years ago, people live above/in both.

I agree and like both of those developments but maybe I didn't word it right. Those locations exist and work well because of their ease of location. I don't think it's an easy of a sell to convince people to live literally next to a busy airport that is mainly accessible by highways that routinely have a lot of traffic to and from. And the residential component of these developments are critical

You know what i see when i see this picture...i can see a time in Cleveland when this Brook Park location is where multiple Stadiums in Cleveland are eventually located.  Think Arlington and Inglewood. People might not be thinking long term enough.  When the Guardians lease with the city of Cleveland is up in 2036...i can absolutely see enough room for a new ball park right here as well.  Then...that Stadium Village/Mixed-use entertainment district will have plenty of people frequenting it all year long if that were to happen.  We all know the situation with Progressive Field and its constant need for upgrades.  2036 will be here in the blink of an eye and MLB expansion is all the talk.  This gives the franchise a much needed piece of real estate for a new stadium.  Just thinking out loud...

 

 

Edited March 26, 20241 yr by OhioFinest

I suspect they would have some success leasing, the Browns are obviously a huge part of life here and living in close proximity to a "Browns World" will appeal to some, especially suburbanites concerned about "crime" who wouldn't take up the already existing option of living next to them Downtown. The problem is any success this has as a wider development also beyond the stadium is going to be at the expense of other parts of the metro that suffer because of tenant poaching. 

 

On the point of airport noise, I grew up living next to a busy rail line for years which was bad enough, I can't imagine living on the doorstep of an airport especially if you aren't used to it.  

 

 

11 minutes ago, dwolfi01 said:

I agree and like both of those developments but maybe I didn't word it right. Those locations exist and work well because of their ease of location. I don't think it's an easy of a sell to convince people to live literally next to a busy airport that is mainly accessible by highways that routinely have a lot of traffic to and from. And the residential component of these developments are critical

 

Not saying I'd want to move the stadium there, but I think that site has a lot of appeal as a residential development.  Close access to 480 and 71 and the Red Line (which is a huge plus), close to employers like NASA and the airport, and relatively far from competing lifestyle centers like Crocker and Pinecrest.

19 minutes ago, dwolfi01 said:

I agree and like both of those developments but maybe I didn't word it right. Those locations exist and work well because of their ease of location. I don't think it's an easy of a sell to convince people to live literally next to a busy airport that is mainly accessible by highways that routinely have a lot of traffic to and from. And the residential component of these developments are critical

And not just ease of location, but proximity to areas with household incomes that are tops in the region. I just don't see what this site could offer that isn't already being served by Crocker and the other shopping/entertainment options in Avon and Strongsville. It almost has to be a purely parking revenue play.

7 minutes ago, MostlyThere14 said:

And not just ease of location, but proximity to areas with household incomes that are tops in the region. I just don't see what this site could offer that isn't already being served by Crocker and the other shopping/entertainment options in Avon and Strongsville. It almost has to be a purely parking revenue play.

 

Also playing devil's advocate:

 

Not to go down a rabbit hole here, but Easton and Polaris in Columbus are exactly 7 miles apart and offer pretty much the same services.

 

Crocker Park to the Brook Park site? Also exactly 7 miles...

Kind of a law of induced demand-scenario. Aka: build it and they will come.

 

8 minutes ago, Geowizical said:

 

Also playing devil's advocate:

 

Not to go down a rabbit hole here, but Easton and Polaris in Columbus are exactly 7 miles apart and offer pretty much the same services.

 

Crocker Park to the Brook Park site? Also exactly 7 miles...

Kind of a law of induced demand-scenario. Aka: build it and they will come.

 

 

If that sort of retail goes to freaking Brookpark and not Tower City I'll be in jail because I'll just start punching random people. 

2 minutes ago, surfohio said:

 

If that sort of retail goes to freaking Brookpark and not Tower City I'll be in jail because I'll just start punching random people. 

 

hahahaha I hope we don't need to start a UO bail fund.

46 minutes ago, OhioFinest said:

You know what i see when i see this picture...i can see a time in Cleveland when this Brook Park location is where multiple Stadiums in Cleveland are eventually located.  Think Arlington and Inglewood. People might not be thinking long term enough.  When the Guardians lease with the city of Cleveland is up in 2036...i can absolutely see enough room for a new ball park right here as well.  Then...that Stadium Village/Mixed-use entertainment district will have plenty of people frequenting it all year long if that were to happen.  We all know the situation with Progressive Field and its constant need for upgrades.  2036 will be here in the blink of an eye and MLB expansion is all the talk.  This gives the franchise a much needed piece of real estate for a new stadium.  Just thinking out loud...

Losing the Browns to Brookpark would be bad enough.  But also losing the Guardians and potential ballpark village would be devastating for downtown.  Let's pray that never happens.

I'm with @dwolfi01on this; if you're trying to market what I'm sure will be luxury apartments noise pollution from an airport and main freight line are a lot to over look. You can try to sell highway access, but those highways are close so that's more noise pollution. You can sound proof units well enough but people are going to want to be able to enjoy time on patios and balconies. 

 

A big difference between Crocker and Pine Crest is those areas weren't industrial hardscapes before they were developed. 

You know what cracks me up? People talking about how Brookpark has direct access to 480, 71 and a red line. Sounds impressive...wait a sec...doesn't downtown have direct access to 71, 77, 90, a red line and a blue/green line and l'll throw in the Euclid Ave. Healthline. 

 

A bunch of my family lives in Arlington Tx. They took me for a tour of Jerry World. I saw the new baseball stadium right next to it which is right next to the old?? baseball stadium. Wonderful artificial place they built in a sea of parking. Very suburban if you like that sort of thing.

 

Kansas City is finally correcting their mistake by leaving those utilitarian baseball/football stadiums which reside inside a soul-sucking lot. The team is moving to a new ballpark downtown. If it's good enough for KC it's good enough for us lol.

 

Look, l know we have little to no control over what Haslem will do. But we should at least know what good design is and where and why a project should be located. 

That example from New England in KJP’s article looks like a stadium surrounded by an outlet mall. 🤢

25 minutes ago, MostlyThere14 said:

And not just ease of location, but proximity to areas with household incomes that are tops in the region. I just don't see what this site could offer that isn't already being served by Crocker and the other shopping/entertainment options in Avon and Strongsville. It almost has to be a purely parking revenue play.

 

The Browns site would be closer than Crocker (or Pinecrest) to Strongsville, Independence, Brecksville/Broadview Heights, Seven Hills, North Royalton, Parma, Parma Heights, Middleburg Heights, Berea, and so on.  There are plenty of high income households in those cities.  If the Haslams provided similar offerings to Crocker, why would they bypass this site to go there?

 

9 minutes ago, cadmen said:

You know what cracks me up? People talking about how Brookpark has direct access to 480, 71 and a red line. Sounds impressive...wait a sec...doesn't downtown have direct access to 71, 77, 90, a red line and a blue/green line and l'll throw in the Euclid Ave. Healthline. 

 

A bunch of my family lives in Arlington Tx. They took me for a tour of Jerry World. I saw the new baseball stadium right next to it which is right next to the old?? baseball stadium. Wonderful artificial place they built in a sea of parking. Very suburban if you like that sort of thing.

 

Kansas City is finally correcting their mistake by leaving those utilitarian baseball/football stadiums which reside inside a soul-sucking lot. The team is moving to a new ballpark downtown. If it's good enough for KC it's good enough for us lol.

 

Look, l know we have little to no control over what Haslem will do. But we should at least know what good design is and where and why a project should be located. 

 

Agreed, I'm only saying this Brook Park site compares favorably to Crocker and Pinecrest.  Obviously downtown has it all.

 

48 minutes ago, coneflower said:

That example from New England in KJP’s article looks like a stadium surrounded by an outlet mall. 🤢

 

Part of it is strip mall. Part of it is a lifestyle center. But mostly it's a TON of parking. 

In the 1990s they tore down a neighborhood in Brook Park (Forestwood Ave) because it was too close to the airport and too loud. 
 

This stadium site is much closer than that neighborhood. 
 

This Reddit post includes an article from the time that goes into more detail. I’m skeptical that this would have legs as a residential location, especially a high end development. 

 

Interesting that they didn't mention where the team would play if they opt to renovate the current stadium. Another reason I continue to think that that's the least likely option, even behind other Cleveland sites that they claim aren't under consideration.

silly sidebar, but the airport is going to need an airtrain to circle all this new useable parking and to connect to the car rental outpost while they are at it.

57 minutes ago, Henke said:

In the 1990s they tore down a neighborhood in Brook Park (Forestwood Ave) because it was too close to the airport and too loud. 
 

This stadium site is much closer than that neighborhood. 
 

This Reddit post includes an article from the time that goes into more detail. I’m skeptical that this would have legs as a residential location, especially a high end development. 

 

That neighborhood is in Cleveland and is in the flight path of arriving and departing planes.  Planes have also gotten considerably quieter since the 90s.

 

My office is closer to the runways at the airport than this development would be (but also outside the flight path), and the noise is really not a problem.

Are there concerns about too much noise at football games? Since when??

 

If a stadium reaches jet plane decibels, it's considered an achievement.

21 hours ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

“It’s hard to get into, hard to get out of, we have no parking. I think that was really something important for us, as how to solve those issues. And when you start thinking about what Cleveland can be and what the vision for this city is, I think we underestimate what a great place it is. And I think there’s an opportunity here to perhaps build a dome stadium that can transform our area. That’s something exciting to think about. We’re looking at both options. Not one option is above the other. But I do think that Cleveland deserves to be thought of as this evolving, forward-thinking, creative city as opposed to not thinking big.” -Dee Haslem 

 

so they want parking revenue? Otherwise I don’t think anyone complains about parking for the game  

Any suburbanite fan complaining about parking downtown or getting to the lakefront being difficult to get to is fooling themselves if they think Brook Park is going to be an easy drive in and out of the stadium with little to no traffic. Just because something is not traffic congested now doesn't mean it won't be if you put a 80,000 plus seat stadium with the only reasonable option to get there is driving your car to the parking lot. The Rapid station would not drop you right off at the site like these sports writers like Ruiter or Lloyd foolishly keep mentioning (who frankly don't give a F*** about the city proper themselves).

 

This is all about Jimmy getting his greasy hands on more revenue ala parking revenue. I frankly don't see how a "ballpark village" with shops and other mixed use options would work when Crocker park is basically 20 minutes from there by car. This region just continues to cannibalize each other

3 hours ago, surfohio said:

 

If that sort of retail goes to freaking Brookpark and not Tower City I'll be in jail because I'll just start punching random people. 

Buddy, Tower City aint getting retail any where close to it's suburban retail counter parts unless you knock down Key tower, SHW, Huntington building, and make those properties, and public square, into free surface parking lots; move RTA miles away and round up the panhandlers completely out of sight. Until then, the amount of people, especially suburbanites, that would support that kind of retail are choosing Brook Park 7 days a week, and twice on Sundays. There is a reason Tower City of the 90s lost everyone one of their tenants. 

1 hour ago, mrnyc said:

silly sidebar, but the airport is going to need an airtrain to circle all this new useable parking and to connect to the car rental outpost while they are at it.

Not so silly -- that would be a nice addition to the current car-centered design of the area.  (I'd rather see a better Red Line experience, however, than more parking)

2 hours ago, Henke said:

In the 1990s they tore down a neighborhood in Brook Park (Forestwood Ave) because it was too close to the airport and too loud. 
 

This stadium site is much closer than that neighborhood. 
 

This Reddit post includes an article from the time that goes into more detail. I’m skeptical that this would have legs as a residential location, especially a high end development. 

 

Is residential a component of this ''village''? I would think any ''village'' would consist of at least a couple of hotels, some retail, dining, bars etc.  Haven't read anywhere that residential was a part of this Brook Park proposal, unless I missed it.   

 

I like this Brook Park proposal and, frankly, am over Cleveland and its stadium drama every decade or so.  At least the Browns aren't relocating.  The current stadium should never have been built on the lakefront but, being time pressed and sold as a centerpiece of grandiose lakefront plans, there it sits on arguably the best location in the state. 

 

Time for CLE to open up its lakefront.  Hopefully Bibb, even with his thin resume, can otherwise pull off a successful ''shore to core'' plan without a stadium. 

2 hours ago, AsDustinFoxWouldSay said:

Buddy, Tower City aint getting retail any where close to it's suburban retail counter parts unless you knock down Key tower, SHW, Huntington building, and make those properties, and public square, into free surface parking lots; move RTA miles away and round up the panhandlers completely out of sight. Until then, the amount of people, especially suburbanites, that would support that kind of retail are choosing Brook Park 7 days a week, and twice on Sundays. There is a reason Tower City of the 90s lost everyone one of their tenants. 

 

You thought that was a wise comment to share with the world? At least your real name isn't on it.

2 hours ago, AsDustinFoxWouldSay said:

Buddy, Tower City aint getting retail any where close to it's suburban retail counter parts unless you knock down Key tower, SHW, Huntington building, and make those properties, and public square, into free surface parking lots; move RTA miles away and round up the panhandlers completely out of sight. Until then, the amount of people, especially suburbanites, that would support that kind of retail are choosing Brook Park 7 days a week, and twice on Sundays. There is a reason Tower City of the 90s lost everyone one of their tenants. 

 

I think Columbus beat us to the punch on that development strategy

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus_City_Center

 

48 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

You thought that was a wise comment to share with the world? At least your real name isn't on it.

I fail to see how my comment is wrong when this region time and time again shows that it values giant free parking spaces when it comes to shopping. 

I'm clearly not advocating doing such thing as making the center of downtown a giant parking lot. 

3 hours ago, AsDustinFoxWouldSay said:

Buddy, Tower City aint getting retail any where close to it's suburban retail counter parts unless you knock down Key tower, SHW, Huntington building, and make those properties, and public square, into free surface parking lots; move RTA miles away and round up the panhandlers completely out of sight. Until then, the amount of people, especially suburbanites, that would support that kind of retail are choosing Brook Park 7 days a week, and twice on Sundays. There is a reason Tower City of the 90s lost everyone one of their tenants. 

They didn’t choose north Olmsted 

When The Haslam's introduced their vision for a revitalized lakefront plan, which included the land bridge concept, why wasn't more of the land surrounding the stadium designed or considered valuable for a ballpark village that they could invest in? Why did The Haslam's develop this plan if they really didn't want to stay on the lakefront? Did they consciously walk away from involving themselves in conversations or did the city decide that.  As of now, I hope that whomever is finalizing plans for the north coast lakefront they develop a plan of what replaces the stadium.  

9 minutes ago, dave2017 said:

When The Haslam's introduced their vision for a revitalized lakefront plan, which included the land bridge concept, why wasn't more of the land surrounding the stadium designed or considered valuable for a ballpark village that they could invest in? Why did The Haslam's develop this plan if they really didn't want to stay on the lakefront? Did they consciously walk away from involving themselves in conversations or did the city decide that.  As of now, I hope that whomever is finalizing plans for the north coast lakefront they develop a plan of what replaces the stadium.  

 

These are all great questions. Removing the stadium from the equation and adding all that available space probably should require a completely new assessment for a cohesive plan. 

 

In that scenario more delays are inevitable. But it is imperative they get this done right. 

Jim Donovan believes the Cleveland Browns want a new domed stadium, likely in Brook Park
https://www.wkyc.com/article/sports/local-sports/jimmys-take/jimmys-take-jim-donovan-cleveland-browns-want-new-domed-stadium-brook-park/95-3634a883-9dd2-4b81-a0b5-8c740697f338
 

The thing that is frustrating about this debate is it’s missing the most important variable. What is the funding? Taxpayers paying $2B to move the stadium is a lot different than the Haslams paying most of that on their own. 
 

The argument Jim Donovan describes here is the Browns move and the city does what it wants with the lakefront. Which is a great thought that many people have desired over the years but if there is no money leftover to do anything, it just sits there?

 

I would like to hear from Justin Bibb and Chris Ronayne. At some point they need to provide more that just one or two sentence statements. They are elected the represent the people’s interests. 

10 hours ago, AsDustinFoxWouldSay said:

I fail to see how my comment is wrong when this region time and time again shows that it values giant free parking spaces when it comes to shopping. 

I'm clearly not advocating doing such thing as making the center of downtown a giant parking lot. 

 

The footprint of Key Tower (I'll even throw in the Marriott Key to add more parking) is 53,000 square feet or just over 1 acre. If turned into a surface parking lot, that could accommodate 177 cars. If that lot filled 100 percent and turned over a generous five times in one day, that's 885 cars at an average occupancy of 1.2 people per car or 1,062 people. The 1.5 million square foot Key Tower is 90+ percent full. At an average of about 200 square feet per office worker, that's 7,500 people. The 402-room Marriott, if filled to the 2023 downtown average of 60 percent with an average occupancy of two people per room, adds another 400 people.

 

So you mean to tell me that your 1,062 people using free parking is better than the current 7,900 people (who make pretty good money BTW) in a couple of towers? Yes, you're wrong. I don't mean to take this off-topic. I hope this post will put a merciless end to this ridiculous discussion.

 

Back to the Browns and where they will play.

19 hours ago, GISguy said:

 

Hate to play devil's advocate but plenty of developments exist around apartments in other cities. Crocker Park was woods ~20 years ago, Pinecrest was a residential neighborhood <10 years ago, people live above/in both.

Crocker Park isn't wedged between 2 highways, a rail yard and a busy Class B airport.  

1 hour ago, coneflower said:

Jim Donovan believes the Cleveland Browns want a new domed stadium, likely in Brook Park
https://www.wkyc.com/article/sports/local-sports/jimmys-take/jimmys-take-jim-donovan-cleveland-browns-want-new-domed-stadium-brook-park/95-3634a883-9dd2-4b81-a0b5-8c740697f338
 

The thing that is frustrating about this debate is it’s missing the most important variable. What is the funding? Taxpayers paying $2B to move the stadium is a lot different than the Haslams paying most of that on their own. 
 

The argument Jim Donovan describes here is the Browns move and the city does what it wants with the lakefront. Which is a great thought that many people have desired over the years but if there is no money leftover to do anything, it just sits there?

 

I would like to hear from Justin Bibb and Chris Ronayne. At some point they need to provide more that just one or two sentence statements. They are elected the represent the people’s interests. 

Exactly this!! If the Haslam's want to move to Brook Park, and they're willing to do so on their own dime, then great! At that point I'm ambivalent (at worst) to the decision. But if they are moving the stadium out of downtown they shouldn't the same level of taxpayer support. 

 

My position is that elected officials should be proactive on this (and it sounds like they might be doing this behind the scenes). I would tell the city/county to cap their support to a set number regardless of if the browns decide to build new or refurb. For the city specifically, I would have them make very clear that they aren't supporting any project outside of city limits (extremely reasonable). Whatever the Haslams want to do beyond that support they can make up from their pockets, the state, or the surrounding counties. 

 

Honestly, if the Browns decide to move to Brook Park entirely on their own dime (zero public support). I might actually prefer that. Even the public contribution to the current stadium refurb is a lot of money. If they didn't need to spend that I'm sure that money could be spent elsewhere (and if not we can always lower taxes to be more competitive with surrounding counties).

 

The degree of public support isn't incidental in this discussion, it's a major factor, probably on par with the location.

20 minutes ago, Ethan said:

Exactly this!! If the Haslam's want to move to Brook Park, and they're willing to do so on their own dime, then great! At that point I'm ambivalent (at worst) to the decision. But if they are moving the stadium out of downtown they shouldn't the same level of taxpayer support. 

 

My position is that elected officials should be proactive on this (and it sounds like they might be doing this behind the scenes). I would tell the city/county to cap their support to a set number regardless of if the browns decide to build new or refurb. For the city specifically, I would have them make very clear that they aren't supporting any project outside of city limits (extremely reasonable). Whatever the Haslams want to do beyond that support they can make up from their pockets, the state, or the surrounding counties. 

 

Honestly, if the Browns decide to move to Brook Park entirely on their own dime (zero public support). I might actually prefer that. Even the public contribution to the current stadium refurb is a lot of money. If they didn't need to spend that I'm sure that money could be spent elsewhere (and if not we can always lower taxes to be more competitive with surrounding counties).

 

The degree of public support isn't incidental in this discussion, it's a major factor, probably on par with the location.

 

Agree with all of this.  I'd be fine with some city/county money as part of a move to Brook Park as long as it is either contingent upon demolition of the old stadium and building the land bridge or it just straight up funds those two things.  The Haslams have said they're not leaving the region, so it seems local leaders have some leverage now to ensure the Haslams at least don't leave the lakefront bereft of any hope of development if they're going to provide any financial assistance.

Edited March 27, 20241 yr by acd

What a contrast it is to see the Cavs, Cleveland Clinic, and Bedrock announcement to build a state-of-the-art facility in downtown Cleveland the day after the Haslams announcing the may build a dome in Brookpark. Unfortunately, it appears the best option, building a state-of-the-art covered stadium downtown, away from the lake, isn't even on the table. I'm sorry to those who think a football stadium downtown is a waste of space, but I believe it would be a huge loss for downtown to lose the Browns. 

It's like the Bears and more so the White Sox. Different circumstances from the Browns, sure, but those owners have not done a thing for developing new housing, hotels, restaurants, bars, parks, retail, improved public access... really anything to make those desolate stadiums economic engines. And all the while the city/county is pumping hundreds of millions for years into the billionaires laps with only vague ROIs. Hurray for the parking lot owners and liquor stores - they sure make a killing when the drunk idiots are tailgating. What an investment!

 

Granted the Bears have unique hurdles, but the White Sox could be another Wrigley if the bastard Reinsdorf didn't have such a hard-on for parking lots and unused land. If that team moves closer to the river, he still won't be developing s**t. There's a reason the United Center, despite being adjacent to the hottest neigbhorhood in the midwest, is still surrounded by parking lots. It's like you're on the moon when walking around there, just the way he likes it.

 

They aren't developers; they're asshole billionaires who want freebees and for sports fans to kiss the ring.

 

Back to the point TBideon, back to point...

 

With a straight face, who on earth really thanks Jimmy and Dee will develop anything outside the stadium, and in Brookpark of all places. The only thing they know how to develop are familiar powerpoint presentations and division among Browns fans who don't want to root for a sexual predator quarterback.

 

Maybe the Browns will move, but that's going to be one lonely, isolated stadium if they pick Brookpark. 

 

But at the end of the day, Jimmy and Dee, just make a f'ing decision. The Empire State building was built in 9 months; how the hell has this discussion gone for so much longer. 

 

Edited March 27, 20241 yr by TBideon