browns leaving would significantly alter the core to shore approach. the "landbridge" is designed almost completely with stadium access in mind.

On 3/31/2024 at 11:51 PM, Oxford19 said:

Right, so Bibb needs to take on the Haslams, get the dome in downtown, and eliminate any potential competition from Brook Park or anywhere else in the region.

 

Or, Bibb can hold firm on his numbers. Of course the Browns ''should'' play in Cleveland, that's not a high bar, and we're not even getting that out of Bibb.  If Brook Park will be too much competition for downtown CLE then Bibb needs to negotiate, something that's precluded when one holds firm with his numbers.  Bibb the ''progressive'' v. the billionaire Haslams; the latter will be blamed if they go to Brook Park in the end. 

 

''Leave Cleveland'' isn't quite accurate on this new stadium issue.  It's not like the Browns are moving out to Richfield and the Browns fans are by far from outside Cuyahoga County.  Brook Park is a smart option for the Browns, way better than Modell's 1972 Strongsville threat.  Things need to get decided on this sooner than later so things can get moving for 2028.

I dont think the Haslems will be blamed at all...  This is Bibb not giving any options other than staying on the lakefront.  Bibb needs the stadium there to do the landbridge..  Bibb is being short sighted and it will cost him the most.  There are more options for the browns in the city proper but Bibb refuses to discuss them.

8 minutes ago, G00pie said:

I dont think the Haslems will be blamed at all...  This is Bibb not giving any options other than staying on the lakefront.  Bibb needs the stadium there to do the landbridge..  Bibb is being short sighted and it will cost him the most.  There are more options for the browns in the city proper but Bibb refuses to discuss them.

And you know this how?

55 minutes ago, Whipjacka said:

browns leaving would significantly alter the core to shore approach. the "landbridge" is designed almost completely with stadium access in mind.

 

This is the most depressing potentiality about the whole ordeal.  

1 hour ago, G00pie said:

I dont think the Haslems will be blamed at all...  This is Bibb not giving any options other than staying on the lakefront.  Bibb needs the stadium there to do the landbridge..  Bibb is being short sighted and it will cost him the most.  There are more options for the browns in the city proper but Bibb refuses to discuss them.

How on earth do you know this 

1 hour ago, G00pie said:

I dont think the Haslems will be blamed at all...  This is Bibb not giving any options other than staying on the lakefront.  Bibb needs the stadium there to do the landbridge..  Bibb is being short sighted and it will cost him the most.  There are more options for the browns in the city proper but Bibb refuses to discuss them.

 

I can unequivocally confirm this part isn't true. 

Bibb is very bright.  My sense is he will come up with an option that we are not even considering like he did with the new police headquarters in the ArtsCraft Building.  I don't see the Browns leaving the city, but I do potentially see this playing out in a way we have yet to consider.  

 

The Federal Aviation Administration lacks the authority by itself to shoot down a proposed domed Cleveland Browns football stadium near Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, where owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam have an option to buy 176 acres of land in Brook Park.

When asked if it would allow the stadium’s construction, the federal agency issued a statement that said developers must give it the opportunity to evaluate proposed structures near airports to determine whether they could pose a hazard to aircraft or interfere with navigation aids. It didn't offer an opinion about a potential stadium next to Hopkins.

 

 

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2024/04/could-the-faa-stop-the-browns-from-building-a-stadium-next-to-hopkins-airport.html?utm_source=instagram&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=likeshopme&utm_content=www.instagram.com/p/C5RBQCuMfFA

 

 

Looks like a non-story 

3 minutes ago, newyorker said:

Bibb is very bright.  My sense is he will come up with an option that we are not even considering like he did with the new police headquarters in the ArtsCraft Building.  I don't see the Browns leaving the city, but I do potentially see this playing out in a way we have yet to consider.  

What about the site by Gordon Park where the old CEI/First Energy plant was razed.  Is that a possibility?  It's not downtown, but at least it's in Cleveland.

And where are you guys getting that the land bridge isn't needed without the stadium? I contend it's needed more with the stadium replaced by a dense and diverse land use that offers more consistent pedestrian traffic on a daily basis.

 

Browns home attendance in 2023 was 610,295. Much less than half of that are candidates for using a landbridge. Perhaps one-fourth or one-third? If you spread that total attendance over an entire year, that's 1,672 people per day. One-fourth to one-third of that is 418-557 people.

 

You mean to tell me that it's unlikely that 418-557 people would walk across that landbridge each day? Even with a dense mixed-use development replacing the 20+ acre stadium? Even with a multimodal hub built into the land bridge?

I'd rather have a dense, mixed use community without the stadium. I hope they move. 

2 minutes ago, jbee1982 said:

I'd rather have a dense, mixed use community without the stadium. I hope they move. 

I would hope they consider the post office site

1 hour ago, newyorker said:

Bibb is very bright.  My sense is he will come up with an option that we are not even considering like he did with the new police headquarters in the ArtsCraft Building.  I don't see the Browns leaving the city, but I do potentially see this playing out in a way we have yet to consider.  

 

I agree but it might not be in his control. 

 

Look at all of this in a vacuum... If the Haslam's can buy up a larger swath of land and control all the revenue streams arising therefrom (events, lodging, shopping, parking, etc.), they won't really care as much about the out-of-pocket expenses because it turns into an annuity that guarantees them a final four or Super Bowl every decade, an annual bowl game, year round headliner concerts, and makes the complex an annuity, not a cost. 

 

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I also think he'll need to convince them that it makes fiscal sense to stay somewhere that limits their ROI, which I'm not sure he can. HAVING SAID THAT, my gut tells me that the team will ultimately stay in or near downtown. 

50 minutes ago, KJP said:

And where are you guys getting that the land bridge isn't needed without the stadium? I contend it's needed more with the stadium replaced by a dense and diverse land use that offers more consistent pedestrian traffic on a daily basis.

 

Browns home attendance in 2023 was 610,295. Much less than half of that are candidates for using a landbridge. Perhaps one-fourth or one-third? If you spread that total attendance over an entire year, that's 1,672 people per day. One-fourth to one-third of that is 418-557 people.

 

You mean to tell me that it's unlikely that 418-557 people would walk across that landbridge each day? Even with a dense mixed-use development replacing the 20+ acre stadium? Even with a multimodal hub built into the land bridge?

I don't necessarily disagree with your thinking but the plans do include the stadium. I think it's reasonable for people to assume that it's important to the project. Bibb himself has always talked about the Browns remaining on the lakefront.

 

And to be honest, a lot would need to happen for the current stadium site to become dense mixed use development. Who knows how long the stadium could sit there if the Browns move. 

3 hours ago, G00pie said:

I dont think the Haslems will be blamed at all...  This is Bibb not giving any options other than staying on the lakefront.  Bibb needs the stadium there to do the landbridge..  Bibb is being short sighted and it will cost him the most.  There are more options for the browns in the city proper but Bibb refuses to discuss them.

Right, which is why the billionaire Haslams will be blamed.  Bibb is, after all, supposed to be a ''progressive".  

24 minutes ago, MostlyThere14 said:

I don't necessarily disagree with your thinking but the plans do include the stadium. I think it's reasonable for people to assume that it's important to the project. Bibb himself has always talked about the Browns remaining on the lakefront.

 

And to be honest, a lot would need to happen for the current stadium site to become dense mixed use development. Who knows how long the stadium could sit there if the Browns move. 

This has been brought up a few times before, but if the stadium does move it would probably send lakefront planning back a few steps, if not back to the beginning. As annoying as it is, it probably should. The best case scenario would be to consider the real estate from the stadium as a (potential) phase 2 in the current planning. If it never moves, great! But if it does at least we'll be prepared. 

 

There's been some discussion of this in the lakefront thread. 

 

On 3/27/2024 at 2:17 PM, Ethan said:

It'd be about half the size of Edgewater, so nothing to scoff at. Another potential option is to add another museum of some sort to this space. We already have the Rock Hall, Science Center, the Mather, the COD, and even the Women's Air and Space museum if you keep going east. It could have a vibe similar to Chicago's museum campus (though probably with a few more active uses). Possibly a planetarium or a better aquarium. 

 

If the stadium does go, it potentially throws the current lakefront plan up in the air, and I'm conflicted by it. On one hand I don't want it to slow things down, but on the other hand a plan that optimally uses 50 acres should be better than one that optimally uses ~30 acres and then factors in the rest at a later date. Hopefully this is being considered behind the scenes and a phase two already exists. 

 

3 hours ago, KJP said:

And where are you guys getting that the land bridge isn't needed without the stadium? I contend it's needed more with the stadium replaced by a dense and diverse land use that offers more consistent pedestrian traffic on a daily basis.

 

Browns home attendance in 2023 was 610,295. Much less than half of that are candidates for using a landbridge. Perhaps one-fourth or one-third? If you spread that total attendance over an entire year, that's 1,672 people per day. One-fourth to one-third of that is 418-557 people.

 

You mean to tell me that it's unlikely that 418-557 people would walk across that landbridge each day? Even with a dense mixed-use development replacing the 20+ acre stadium? Even with a multimodal hub built into the land bridge?

 

You're talking logic, not politics. 

3 hours ago, KJP said:

Browns home attendance in 2023 was 610,295.

That number made me want to put the public subsidy to the Browns into perspective...

 

The Browns want $500M from the City to keep the stadium downtown, and it appears that the City is at least open to that idea.  For that money, we'd get about 610,000 people to visit downtown.  That equals about $820 of City money for every person it brings downtown.  Not too shabby...

 

Meanwhile the City provided $100M in incentives to SHW to keep and relocate a total of 3500 employees to the new downtown HQ.  With 260 working days in a year, that equals 910,000 people SHW brings downtown every year.  That's only $110 of City money for every person it brings downtown.  Even better!

 

Meanwhile the City provided the Lumen $10M in incentives.  At 318 apartments, let's say that's 500 total people, but for 365 days a year.  That's 182,500 people a year it brings downtown for a total of $55 of City money for every person it brings downtown.  Now we're talking!!!

 

I know its not as simple as this, but, on paper, for $500M, the City can get 1 stadium and 610,000 annual football fans for an afternoon or even a day downtown, or 5 skyscrapers with 17,500 office workers for 4.5M visits annually, or 50 high-rise apartment buildings with 25,000 residents for 9.1M visits annually to our downtown.

2 hours ago, surfohio said:

 

You're talking logic, not politics. 

 

Which is why I will never run for an elected office despite my wife suggesting that I should. She's from the Former Soviet Union and doesn't realize how public our lives would become.

Jimmy can build his dome in Brookpark. We can use the Sin Tax money to lop off the upper deck of CBS, put a roof over the lower bowl, and turn it into our soccer stadium. Commence land bridge.

10 hours ago, goozer said:

That would be helpful in that it would create ancillary development opportunities for HSG although it doesn't solve the parking/accesibilty problem which is the large revenue generator in Brook Park and also does not address the fact that the team wants an indoor/dome facility.   The city should be working its tail off to find 175 acres within the city limits but I suspect they (or the Haslams really) have tried to no avail which led to the 2 options quote last week.

It's not just 175 acres. It's also multiple freeway options to the site as well to get all those cars into Jimmy's parking lot. I'm sure Cleveland has multiple 175 acres of vacant land. The issue is that there's no freeway adjacent to it

For cryin out loud Cleveland…this is going to turn into a dam circus! 

31 minutes ago, OhioFinest said:

For cryin out loud Cleveland…this is going to turn into a dam circus! 

...only here on UO

Edited April 3, 20241 yr by Oxford19

A land bridge is required regardless of whether or not there's a new stadium on the lakefront. 

 

E 9th Street from Lakeside to the Rock Hall is an embarrassment that requires an alternate main route ASAP. One thing is certain, Cleveland's history of ''lakefront plans'' by far outweigh any of its ''new stadium'' drama. 

The Super Bowl champs just lost a county vote to fund a new stadium. That certainly should be eye-opening for the Browns. https://www.kctv5.com/2024/04/03/royals-chiefs-concede-loss-stadium-sales-tax-vote/?outputType=amp

 

 

3 hours ago, coneflower said:

The Super Bowl champs just lost a county vote to fund a new stadium. That certainly should be eye-opening for the Browns. https://www.kctv5.com/2024/04/03/royals-chiefs-concede-loss-stadium-sales-tax-vote/?outputType=amp

 

 

Beat me to it posting here lol. But I hope this makes them reconsider just how much leverage they have with negotiations and no matter what is decided I hope we get to vote on any new tax or incentives given out. Let the people have a voice

3 hours ago, coneflower said:

The Super Bowl champs just lost a county vote to fund a new stadium. That certainly should be eye-opening for the Browns. https://www.kctv5.com/2024/04/03/royals-chiefs-concede-loss-stadium-sales-tax-vote/?outputType=amp

 

 

 

They'll figure a way around it - something similar happened in Pittsburgh when they were building their stadiums - voters rejected raising taxes for the stadiums but the powers that be still found public monies to build their stadiums. 

 

These franchise owners have a stranglehold on us and the owners know it. 

14 hours ago, Oxford19 said:

A land bridge is required regardless of whether or not there's a new stadium on the lakefront. 

 

E 9th Street from Lakeside to the Rock Hall is an embarrassment that requires an alternate main route ASAP. One thing is certain, Cleveland's history of ''lakefront plans'' by far outweigh any of its ''new stadium'' drama. 

 

The "lakefront plans" and the Browns stadium history/drama: these two things are not mutually exclusive. They're both cause and effect of poor ineffectual planning that continues to haunt us.  

Edited April 3, 20241 yr by surfohio

1 hour ago, surfohio said:

 

The "lakefront plans" and the Browns stadium history/drama: these two things are not mutually exclusive. They're both cause and effect of poor ineffectual planning that continues to haunt us.  

I didn't mention ''Browns stadium history/drama'' specifically but Cleveland has a decades long history of general stadium drama.  There have been lots of plans over the past 50+ years for the lakefront that didn't include a new lakefront stadium for the Browns and Indians.  There is definitely a history of exclusive lakefront plans.

 

Currently not perhaps mutually exclusive but very well could be depending on, of course, what the Browns ultimately decide.

Edited April 3, 20241 yr by Oxford19

10 minutes ago, Oxford19 said:

I didn't mention ''Browns stadium history/drama'' specifically but Cleveland has a decades long history of general stadium drama.  There have been lots of plans over the past 50+ years for the lakefront that didn't include a new lakefront stadium for the Browns and Indians.  There is definitely a history of exclusive lakefront plans.

 

Currently not perhaps mutually exclusive but very well could be depending on, of course, what the Browns ultimately decide.

 

Oh yeah I'm very aware. I have a drawer full of lakefront plans somewhere (I have a little tiny bit of a coastal planning background) and lived in CLE for the whole Modell episode. Lots of trauma lol. 

Much worse climate here in KC than Cleveland in terms of the suburban mindset. You have suburbanites who are used to having the teams on their doorstep and have misplaced fears over crime and parking. Then clueless Mayor, County Exec and rushed plans from the teams. Considering my options here now, Downtown KC sucks and it really needed this. The car climate is unbareable here, I can't get a bus from Johnson County KS to Downtown KC outwith 9-5 Mon-Fri ffs and theres going to continue to be no demand for this sort of stuff when you don't put assets in the core which make people want to go there. Don't be KC Cleveland!

A buddy of mine moved back from KC a year ago and said his suburban area had no zoning. Total anarchy.

I have not been able to read all the posts on this topic (too many), but my understanding is that one hold-up for the Browns on lakefront is the Haslam's want control of revenue from parking, is that correct?

 

I saw the city allows that, but use that as impetus to change the culture of the community from cars to public transportation. Invest heavily in new trains/bus routes, tax the surface lots more. Do it in a way to improve the community and limit the amount the team will make from parking.

33 minutes ago, GCrites said:

A buddy of mine moved back from KC a year ago and said his suburban area had no zoning. Total anarchy.

Cleveland feels like New York to me compared to KC. Having lived in a spread out region like this it's why I am vehemently against Cleveland sending assets of any sort out to the suburbs without a fight. 

 

I suspect the Chiefs end up in Kansas now next to the Speedway and MLS, Royals I would be more worried about. I think they'll play off other parts of the region first however when you vote these things down you can't be surprised when whispers of Nashville, Salt Lake City other parts of Texas etc come into the discussion. They should be in NKC and the Royals in the East Village but people in this city are so concerned about their cars and parking that I think Downtown whilst not dead is on life support. We are lucky to already have these things Downtown so it's a status quo and people are more accepting here. These venues should be catalysts for public transit and walkability. Not 20k parking spaces for gas guzzlers and tailgating.

But you can't show off your $90k F-150 and $10k grill in a bar or restaurant before the game

 

18 hours ago, Oxford19 said:

A land bridge is required regardless of whether or not there's a new stadium on the lakefront. 

Yes, but it is probably less urgent without a stadium.  I would think the shoreway reconfiguration plan needs to be determined before proceeding with a land bridge.

 

18 hours ago, Oxford19 said:

E 9th Street from Lakeside to the Rock Hall is an embarrassment that requires an alternate main route ASAP. One thing is certain, Cleveland's history of ''lakefront plans'' by far outweigh any of its ''new stadium'' drama. 

That section of E 9th is not very pedestrian friendly.  I assume that's why you say it's an embarrassment. Perhaps closing the westbound entrance to the shoreway and the eastbound exit to E 9th would help.  

2 hours ago, LibertyBlvd said:

 

Yes, but it is probably less urgent without a stadium.  I would think the shoreway reconfiguration plan needs to be determined before proceeding with a land bridge.

Agreed.    I think there are many misconceptions here on what would actually take the place of the stadium.  It's not like a SIM city Chicago-like  development would spring up over night.  Best case scenario look at the Flats over the last 20 years--we may get a midrise surrounded by some low rise, low density buildings and a park.   Worst case we get a suburban-lite development like Buffalo ended up with. 

1 hour ago, LibertyBlvd said:

 

Yes, but it is probably less urgent without a stadium.  I would think the shoreway reconfiguration plan needs to be determined before proceeding with a land bridge.

 

That section of E 9th is not very pedestrian friendly.  I assume that's why you say it's an embarrassment. Perhaps closing the westbound entrance to the shoreway and the eastbound exit to E 9th would help.  

Well, if not a land bridge, then some sort of pedestrian access bridge from Mall C to the lakefront is required.  We had the 2015ish pedestrian bridge to the lakefront (where the Superman Statue was supposed to go) without a new stadium.  I thought that bridge was a bit too thin but certainly could work or better yet a wider version of it would do. 

 

Currently, E 9th Street from Lakeside to the Pier area has about 13 access points for vehicles, from garages, parking lots, and Shoreway exits/entrance ramps.  E 9th Street is six-lanes wide and feels like an interstate at times with visitors navigating a cross current of heavy traffic.  I'm familiar with it and it can feel dangerous let alone for out of towners.  

 

 

owner of the capitals and wizards, speaking about doing a deal with the city, good insight to the owners argument for city funding 

 

 

It doesn't change my opinion that subsidizing sports owners needs to be accompanied with a profit-sharing agreement, but it's an interesting interview. This deal is certainly not as nauseating as the bulls**t in Oklahoma and Buffalo, and the treachery is welllllll underway in Kansas.

 

That said, he's full of s**t with the usual "oh, the ancillary benefits are huuuuuuge" cliches despite so much research saying otherwise.

 

It's all so obvious. No profit-sharing agreement, no deal. Let them play in Dubai.

 

Edited April 4, 20241 yr by TBideon

At least publicly, we are being presented a false dichotomy, either the current stadium will be renovated, or a new domed stadium will be built in Brook Park. The fact that Bibb is so locked in on the Browns staying at the lakefront makes me think that maybe, just maybe, there is something going on behind the scenes that that allows the Haslams to build in or near downtown, which is likely the best scenario of all. One can hope, right? 

I think Leonsis has more of a claim to ancillary benefits than the Haslams. He has multiple sports and many live events in his building, which does not sit unused for long. All the business owners and people who own real estate around his building get benefits. 

 

Browns stadium could never replicate that ROI. Even with a dome, how much programming do they really add? If we’re talking about the best use of our very precious financial resources as a region, I just am not persuaded a giant public investment is worth it. 

Bibb has been pretty quiet about the whole thing.

 

My hunch, probably all our hunches, is this isn't a top priority as there really are far more pressing matters, within his control, of which he and his administration should be focusing. 

 

We'll probably see something similar to the Bears in which, like the Browns, the owners bought land in a nearby suburb as leverage, and, like the Browns, decided to stay by the lakefront in the end. A new stadium for the Bears, a big refurbishment for the Browns, and we'll kick the can another 30 or 40 years. Nothing changes, more lakefront powerpoints get presented, and we can go back to arguing if Burke should be closed for another decade.

50 minutes ago, coneflower said:

I think Leonsis has more of a claim to ancillary benefits than the Haslams

Owners always tout the economic benefits.  Politicians do too when it suits their needs.  However, most academics and economists agree that there is little economic benefit from sports stadiums, and certainly not enough to justify the huge public subsidies.  The majority of money spent attending games and other entertainment is "diverted" economic activity, meaning that money would have been spent on some other form of entertainment if the sports team was not there.  The only net add to the economy is the draw of out of town visitors.  That's legit, but is typically over estimated and doesn't come anywhere near to offsetting the public subsidy.  Oh...and stadiums probably generate an extra $10M a year in beer sales because they are the only ones that can get people to pay $13 for a Bud Light.

 

I'm not arguing for or against here, I'm just saying I've looked and I've looked and all the research shows that there is no economic argument to be made here.

 

 

1 hour ago, TMart said:

At least publicly, we are being presented a false dichotomy, either the current stadium will be renovated, or a new domed stadium will be built in Brook Park. The fact that Bibb is so locked in on the Browns staying at the lakefront makes me think that maybe, just maybe, there is something going on behind the scenes that that allows the Haslams to build in or near downtown, which is likely the best scenario of all. One can hope, right? 

I think it is somewhere further up in this thread, but someone mentioned doing a land swap where the post office buildings move to the Brook Park site, and the new Browns Stadium goes on the post office site. I have no idea if something like this is really a possibility, but I think this is the best location for a new stadium regardless. It would have a new stop built for all 3 rail lines, and would fit in perfectly with the potential blue/green/waterfront loop going up E30th.  Here is SoFi just copy and pasted at the same scale. 

 

 

 

 

This would be so much better than Brook Park for attracting big events too.  I just don't see the potential some other fans are seeing in the Brook Park site.  Suburb stadiums just don't get Super Bowls and Final Fours.  Glendale is the only one to do so, but they have Arizona weather and frequently host big events.  You need to at least be close to where all of the hotels are, not a 20 minute highway drive or train ride away.

I like it but I'm sure the Haslam's won't because there's not enough room for parking and a "village." Apparently that ancillary income is what's driving the Brook Park site.

Just now, cadmen said:

I like it but I'm sure the Haslam's won't because there's not enough room for parking and a "village." Apparently that ancillary income is what's driving the Brook Park site.

Agreed.  That's why I think they will ultimately end up in Brook Park.  He sees an extra $1-2 million in parking per game/event and that's all they will focus on.

 

I just don't see this village thing really coming together either.  How many people will really want to live in-between the airport, the stadium, and 30,000+ parking spaces while basically on an island cut off from the rest of the city? Then you just have another car dependent mall. Unless he can somehow bring an Ikea or something to the site as well, I think the place will be empty most of the time.

36 minutes ago, PlanCleveland said:

I think it is somewhere further up in this thread, but someone mentioned doing a land swap where the post office buildings move to the Brook Park site, and the new Browns Stadium goes on the post office site. I have no idea if something like this is really a possibility, but I think this is the best location for a new stadium regardless. It would have a new stop built for all 3 rail lines, and would fit in perfectly with the potential blue/green/waterfront loop going up E30th.  Here is SoFi just copy and pasted at the same scale. 

 

 

 

 

This would be so much better than Brook Park for attracting big events too.  I just don't see the potential some other fans are seeing in the Brook Park site.  Suburb stadiums just don't get Super Bowls and Final Fours.  Glendale is the only one to do so, but they have Arizona weather and frequently host big events.  You need to at least be close to where all of the hotels are, not a 20 minute highway drive or train ride away.

I am still holding out hope for this. There's 80+ acres here. The Haslam's could do a lot with that and would control all of it. Plus maybe the city offers up some of the development rights on the Lakefront to mitigate the loss of parking revenue they would get in Brookpark.  Having all of the sports facilities near each other would also guarantee foot traffic all year round.

56 minutes ago, cadmen said:

I like it but I'm sure the Haslam's won't because there's not enough room for parking and a "village." Apparently that ancillary income is what's driving the Brook Park site.

"Enough room?" What a 19th century concern! Has Mr. Haslam heard of these newfangled multistory buildings? Matter of fact, I've got a design proposal for what Haslam's ballpark village at the post office site can look like. His billionaire friends will be just fawning over *this* phallic beauty. I'd even go so far as to say "If you build it, they will..." well you know.

 

2 hours ago, PlanCleveland said:

I think it is somewhere further up in this thread, but someone mentioned doing a land swap where the post office buildings move to the Brook Park site, and the new Browns Stadium goes on the post office site. I have no idea if something like this is really a possibility, but I think this is the best location for a new stadium regardless. It would have a new stop built for all 3 rail lines, and would fit in perfectly with the potential blue/green/waterfront loop going up E30th.  Here is SoFi just copy and pasted at the same scale. 

 

 

 

Great photo -- look at how much real estate we have given to two rail lines vs. almost 4 parallel roadways. 

 

We could make more space here -- end I-77 at I-490 and make it a boulevard to the north, and consolidate Orange Ave and Woodland with the new I-77 boulevard alongside (north/east of?) the stadium. 

 

And build more parking, of course....