^^Not really.  I looked it up online--I see that the only network television stations (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox) are in Cleveland, not Akron.  That answers my question. 

I hate the idea of a roof or a dome from a football perspective.

 

There are a lot of things that could be done to better improve CBS...

 

 

-Improve the WiFi

 

 

I don't understand why this is really necessary at a sporting event that you paid a ton of money and took up valuable weekend time to attend. Internet should be for when you are bored.

I hate the idea of a roof or a dome from a football perspective.

 

There are a lot of things that could be done to better improve CBS...

 

 

-Improve the WiFi

 

 

I don't understand why this is really necessary at a sporting event that you paid a ton of money and took up valuable weekend time to attend. Internet should be for when you are bored.

 

I disagree. The large usage of mobile devices at sporting events often makes using 3G service impossible, and many fans (myself included) enjoy using social media during games (i.e. Twitter, Facebook, etc.) I always complained about this at Progressive Field in particular, especially considering the Indians have been making such a social media push over the last few years. I was at the Browns game this past Sunday and could barely get a text message out, let alone a Tweet.

^Agree completely.  I have real problems getting to Twitter at Great American Ball Park and Paul Brown Stadium.  It's great for keeping up on news around the league while your game is going on. 

Without a guarantee of a Superbowl, (as Detroit was granted) I cannot see a dome ever recouping the cost of construction, even with naming rights.  There just aren't enough stadium scale events to go around.  And even if you built it for a marquee event, we would face the problem of hotel room shortages as discussed in many other threads here.

I really enjoy Twitter during Browns games. I learn more about what's going on during the game from media folks on Twitter than I do from the play-by-play/color commentators. They tell you who's hurt and how badly, who has just broke a record or other milestone, offer insights on certain plays, and more. And some of the people Tweeting are freaking hilarious, including media folk like Greg Brinda, Lindsey Foltin and Anthony Lima or injured players like Jason Pinkston or fans like BrownsGirl19 and Cleveland Chick.

 

I haven't been to a Browns game in a while, so if I went and couldn't have access to Twitter, I would lose a lot of my game enjoyment.

 

And as for a dome, others have stated here that the Convention Center isn't big enough for the largest medical events. Bringing CBS into the fold by adding a dome should bring the total amount of available exhibit and meeting space to a level where we could compete for the biggest events. Plus there are many small and medium-sized events that could use CBS, as I noted in my BleacherReport article from September that I posted here a couple of days ago. Go see what events Indianapolis' football stadium is attracting (it is connected to its convention center). All kinds of interesting things.

I just don't get this phone stuff, so I guess it's just one of those things that I might not feel is necessary but others really enjoy. Que sera sera.

 

 

And as for a dome, others have stated here that the Convention Center isn't big enough for the largest medical events. Bringing CBS into the fold by adding a dome should bring the total amount of available exhibit and meeting space to a level where we could compete for the biggest events. Plus there are many small and medium-sized events that could use CBS, as I noted in my BleacherReport article from September that I posted here a couple of days ago. Go see what events Indianapolis' football stadium is attracting (it is connected to its convention center). All kinds of interesting things.

 

I disagree.  Check out their calendar.

 

http://www.lucasoilstadium.com/upcoming-events.aspx

 

It's not worth the investment, especially at the expense of Browns football indoors.  When you view the calendar, consider that the vast majority of the events are using restaurant spaces and function rooms for their show, not the actual stadium field itself. 

 

CBS Stadium is already very active as a venue for both corporate and charitable events.  If you drive the Shoreway at night you'll often see the events in full swing.

 

http://www.clevelandbrowns.com/private-events/index.html

 

 

 

I disagree.  Check out their calendar.

 

http://www.lucasoilstadium.com/upcoming-events.aspx

 

It's not worth the investment, especially at the expense of Browns football indoors.  When you view the calendar, consider that the vast majority of the events are using restaurant spaces and function rooms for their show, not the actual stadium field itself. 

 

I did and incorporated my findings into my article I wrote last September. Did you see my article?

 

I disagree.  Check out their calendar.

 

http://www.lucasoilstadium.com/upcoming-events.aspx

 

It's not worth the investment, especially at the expense of Browns football indoors.  When you view the calendar, consider that the vast majority of the events are using restaurant spaces and function rooms for their show, not the actual stadium field itself. 

 

I did and incorporated my findings into my article I wrote last September. Did you see my article?

 

I did and still don't believe those events, save for something like the NCAA championships, are actually using the stadium in a fashion that would warrant spending the millions and millions of dollars on adding a roof.  Much of it is convention business fluffing--they quote 35,000 in attendance, but it's over 7 days.  Note also they have a direct connection to the convention facility, which is crucial for using the stadium as a sellable space with "breakout rooms" for attendees.  We would not have a direct connection.    They also benefit, as I have pointed out in other threads, from being the state capitol.  Many of the events they attract are the "State Association of X, Y or Z"  These would always naturally gravitate towards Columbus.

 

I'm not trying to be a negative here, but based on my experience in the convention business this is not something Cleveland should do.

 

 

We would not have a direct connection.

 

Maybe that's something that Scheiner would want to work on -- linking CBS to the city's planned walkway and help fill the remaining gap (both fiscal and physical) on the walkway/multi-modal transportation center?

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,17673.0.html

 

We would not have a direct connection.

 

Maybe that's something that Scheiner would want to work on -- linking CBS to the city's planned walkway and help fill the remaining gap (both fiscal and physical) on the walkway/multi-modal transportation center?

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,17673.0.html

 

 

That could be interesting, but what would be a great asset would be to build a hotel over the multi-modal parking (we have more than enough within 3 blocks), bike and bus station.  Get rid of the city hall parking space and you can even increase exhibit space in between the parking level and the hotel.

It would be quite the walk from the show floor to the stadium field.  Not ideal.

 

And wouldn't a hotel on the Amtrak site run into problems due to hazmat cargo as KJP has mentioned?

It would be quite the walk from the show floor to the stadium field.  Not ideal.

 

And wouldn't a hotel on the Amtrak site run into problems due to hazmat cargo as KJP has mentioned?

 

But it would be in between the attractions at North Coast Harbor and many of the features of the convention center.

 

And it wouldn't be a problem if you built a hotel where the Amtrak station stands now, which is actually city-owned land. You can build over tracks, but many railroads don't like it if you cover a huge expanse of "canopy" above the tracks. But a few buildings or concourses are probably OK, as long as you leave some spaces and don't cover too much and pay the railroads' their air rights fees.

It would be quite the walk from the show floor to the stadium field.  Not ideal.

 

And wouldn't a hotel on the Amtrak site run into problems due to hazmat cargo as KJP has mentioned?

 

Not if the hotel is located at 9th and Lakeside.  and the extension is and walkway is located where the current City Hall parking lot is located.  This expands the convention center, adds a transit connection, adds a convention size hotel.  You can have street level retail, the parking deck can be on the lower levels, the exhibit/convention space x number of levels that is adjacent/directly connected to the hotel convention space and the hotel tower on top.

OK, who remembers this version of the convention center from 2000? Notice the open space above the busy NS freight tracks (the two tracks closest to the convention center). When I reworked this plan below using an early version of Photoshop in which I covered over the open areas above the NS tracks and showed it to city officials, they said NS requested to leave that area uncovered. My variation is not shown here. Apparently CSX, which owns the tracks next to the Waterfront Line, made no such demand to leave a more open areas above is tracks as Amtrak's four daily trains are the most frequent users of those tracks. CSX rarely uses them for its freight traffic. A few extra tracks were added for this conceptual plan for an intermodal station and hotels built along East 9th and partially over the tracks....

 

Level 620

 

Level 650

Urban designers lament that the lakefront is a poor place for this massive edifice; it is only used ten times per year and really is not that attractive.  A park or other public area would be preferred.  A football stadium in the lee of twenty knot winds in December and January is an unpleasant place to be.  I would advocate going "inland" to this site. It is close enough to the RTA terminal at Terminal Tower. 

 

A nod to KJP for finding this image, now compressed and saved at UO.  Credit to the Plain Dealer: http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb90/Peepersk/Clevelandpics1/Browns2.jpg

So the area that Cleveland offered Art before the move is still there?

OK, since we weren't willing to look up actual naming rights deals for NFL stadiums, here they are:

 

Recent Stadium Naming Rights Deals

 

Houston Texans, Reliant Stadium; $300 million, 30 years

Washington Redskins, FedEx Field; $207 million, 27 years

Arizona Cardinals, University of Phoenix Stadium; $154 million, 20 years

Carolina Panthers, Bank of America Stadium; $140 million, 20 years

Philadelphia Eagles, Lincoln Financial Field; $140 million, 20 years

Indianapolis Colts, Lucas Oil Stadium; $122 million, 20 years

Denver Broncos, Invesco Field at Mile High; $120 million, 20 years

New England Patriots, Gillette Stadium; $115 million, 15 years

Baltimore Ravens, M&T Bank Stadium; $75 million, 15 years

 

SOURCE: http://www.footballphds.com/2011/07/20/stadium-geek-week-nfl-stadium-naming-rights/

 

So it seems that naming rights can be a significant source of revenue to finance stadium improvements or even a new stadium. It should not be dismissed out of hand and without research.

 

And, yes, a dome is structurally feasible, even on landfill land as the stadium itself is much heavier. But the stadium itself cannot support a dome, according to several architectural/engineering firms. Thus, the dome would have to be self-supporting or suspended like Robert Corna proposed in 2006 http://www.wkyc.com/news/article/261916/4/Is-a-dome-even-possible-for-Cleveland-Browns-Stadium or Ralph Tyler Companies proposed in October of this year http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/10/cleveland_architecture_and_eng.html

 

The cost could range from $45 million to $200 million.

 

 

Here is an EXCELLENT article on the subject..... ;)

 

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

BY KEN PRENDERGAST (CONTRIBUTOR) ON SEPTEMBER 19, 2012

 

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

 

But did Haslam suggest the roof to put a lid on any push-back from some city officials who have long wanted a covered stadium?

 

Haslam met with city officials Sept. 19. At the meeting, city councilman Mike Polensek, long a supporter of adding a roof to Cleveland Browns Stadium, asked Haslam how he could make greater use of the stadium. The facility now sits empty more than 350 days per year, as it’s used only for 10 Browns games plus a few concerts a year.

 

READ MORE AT:

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

If this is the case then we should have a dome no problem because Haslam has said he would sell naming rights to someone already. I bet that Key Bank would buy the rights

Urban designers lament that the lakefront is a poor place for this massive edifice; it is only used ten times per year and really is not that attractive.  A park or other public area would be preferred.  A football stadium in the lee of twenty knot winds in December and January is an unpleasant place to be.  I would advocate going "inland" to this site. It is close enough to the RTA terminal at Terminal Tower. 

 

A nod to KJP for finding this image, now compressed and saved at UO.  Credit to the Plain Dealer: http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb90/Peepersk/Clevelandpics1/Browns2.jpg

So the area that Cleveland offered Art before the move is still there?

 

Well, that's a debatable premise, unless you believe Tim Hagan and George Forbes...which I do not. Councilman Rybka was a big proponent of using this site, but Mayor White wouldn't have it. It would have cost more money and taken more time to build as the infrastructure wasn't there. But I suppose it's still feasible for the future.

In 2006 the price tag was $70-$90 million for this dome but now it's $45-$50 Million so even the lowest naming rights deal would easily pay for this dome which is intriguing. The problem I see though is the wind would still be felt of the lake with the sides still having openings. I wonder how much it would cost to close that area up with seating or something, I'm leaning towards more seating because more seating equals more money to pay for it.

 

From what I've seen/read, I think a more accurate estimate would be $100-150 million. But I still think it's in the long term interests of the owner to make the investment, considering they get probably around 95%+ of the revenue from the stadium year round.

From what I've seen/read, I think a more accurate estimate would be $100-150 million. But I still think it's in the long term interests of the owner to make the investment, considering they get probably around 95%+ of the revenue from the stadium year round.

How will they handle the winds that will creep through the sides of the stadium? Will they close them somehow and how much would they cost? Also the $45-$50 million estimate I got came from a story that KJP posted from channel 3.

In 2006 the price tag was $70-$90 million for this dome but now it's $45-$50 Million so even the lowest naming rights deal would easily pay for this dome which is intriguing. The problem I see though is the wind would still be felt of the lake with the sides still having openings. I wonder how much it would cost to close that area up with seating or something, I'm leaning towards more seating because more seating equals more money to pay for it.

 

 

In that model, I'm more intrigued about the random lake/bridge to the west of the stadium and the development to the southwest than I am the dome lol at

 

 

That's a sexy looking stadium.

NFL Rumor: Cleveland Browns Stadium to be named via FirstEnergy

January 14, 2013 By Scott 11 Comments

 

The news vortex of Twitter is abuzz on Monday stating that the Browns will be handing naming rights over to FirstEnergy, the diversified energy company headquartered in Akron, Ohio. Several outlets are bantering about the likelihood, trolling for feedback — one of the more legitimate being WEWS’ Kristin Volk.

 

Following the completion of the transaction which transferred majority ownership of the Cleveland Browns to Jimmy Haslam III, naming rights to the stadium were one of the first items which many in Cleveland expected to be changed. The stadium had been dubbed “Cleveland Browns Stadium” since its erection prior to the 1999 season, but Haslam — the former CEO of a billion-dollar truck stop business — notoriously sees the stadium as additional means to market the team.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.waitingfornextyear.com/2013/01/nfl-rumor-news-cleveland-browns-stadium-first-energy/

Reports: Cleveland Browns Stadium to bear FirstEnergy name

By KEVIN KLEPS

2:56 pm, January 14, 2013

(This story was updated at 3:50 p.m.)

 

On Aug. 3 — more than two months before he was approved officially as owner — Jimmy Haslam said the Cleveland Browns “probably” would explore naming rights to Cleveland Browns Stadium. Today, the rumor mill heated up amid reports that the Browns had struck a naming rights deal with Akron-based electric utility FirstEnergy Corp.

 

In an email this afternoon, Browns spokesman Neal Gulkis said the team would have no comment.

 

FirstEnergy spokesman Todd Schneider gave the following statement to Crain’s:

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20130114/FREE/130119903

"FirstEnergy Field at Cleveland Browns Stadium"?

 

http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/sports/football/browns/will-cleveland-browns-stadium-become-firstenergy-stadium-printed-footballs-say-yes

http://espn.go.com/blog/afcnorth/post/_/id/63581/firstenergy-buys-rights-to-browns-stadium

Interesting announcement from the owner of the Miami Dolphins and SunLife Stadium. A $400 mill renovation is planned for the 26 yr old stadium which would include a roof or a canopy as it's described. It will be almost fully funded by the Dolphins and a tax rebate on goods and services that are stadium generated worth 3million a year for 30 years. Construction to take about a year and the Dolphins would be able to play there during that time. Not sure how. But read the story and watch the video it explains the financing a bit more. I am sure the Browns and Haslem will be taking notice.

 

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/15/3182935/miami-dolphins-sun-life-stadium.html

No fans will call it that.  The media won't either in some cases.  In Denver, segments of the media kept calling the stadium "Mile High" and got badgered by marketing interns from the corporate namer du jour.

 

Nor should they.  F.E. did not pay Clear Channel, for example, for the advertising.

 

On the Browns site where I co-moderate, we're stuck with a "cuss filter".  We can't delete words but we seem to be able to add them and I have proposed adding F**** E***** and its close analogs.

No dome, no corporate name.  The fans are certain to disdain the latter.  The media may too.

I've seen no info on this.  I will think, like "the jake", "Gund Arena" any football stadium in Cleveland will still be known as "the stadium".

The dome will never happen, way too expensive to retrofit an existing stadium like Cleveland's, just to pick up a handful more events throughout the year.  The corporate naming will absolutely happen though.  Browns stadium is one of a small handful of professional sports venue's without corporate naming.

The dome will never happen, way too expensive to retrofit an existing stadium like Cleveland's, just to pick up a handful more events throughout the year.  The corporate naming will absolutely happen though.  Browns stadium is one of a small handful of professional sports venue's without corporate naming.

 

How much would it cost? IIRC I've seen estimates as low as 40 million. In 5 years I think downtown CLE may be ready for it's superbowl hosting party. 

The dome will never happen, way too expensive to retrofit an existing stadium like Cleveland's, just to pick up a handful more events throughout the year.  The corporate naming will absolutely happen though.  Browns stadium is one of a small handful of professional sports venue's without corporate naming.

 

How much would it cost? IIRC I've seen estimates as low as 40 million. In 5 years I think downtown CLE may be ready for it's superbowl hosting party. 

 

It's impossible to predict, but I'm going to say it can't be done for under $100 million.  I know that seems like a huge number, but consider that all the following items need done

- enclose the sides of the stadium

- foundations and structural steel, all around the stadium to support the roof (remember this stadium is built on a garbage dump and many of the old foundations from the previous stadium were reused)

- actual roof structure, connecting & enclosing

- new lighting throughout the interior

- new HVAC system throughout since the building will be enclosed & climate controlled

- new playing surface since field turf will be needed in the dome

SunLife Stadium is built on sand and crushed seashells.

 

The fear of adding a roof is unwarranted. A roof weighs next to nothing compared to the stadium itself.

For whatever reason, I do not feel the same attachment to "Cleveland Browns Stadium" that I did towards "Gund Arena" or "Jacobs Field".  I have finally come around to calling it "the Q", but I don't think I have ever used "Progressive Field"..... "the Prog"...... or whatever we are supposed to call it.  That stadium will always be "Jacobs Field" to me.

^Is it weird that I still occasionally call the Jake "Gateway"? I agree that "Cleveland Browns Stadium" is a stupid name that I'll be ok with replacing.

 

 

Is CBS built on a garbage dump?  I thought it was dredged materials...... and Burke was where the dump was

For whatever reason, I do not feel the same attachment to "Cleveland Browns Stadium" that I did towards "Gund Arena" or "Jacobs Field".  I have finally come around to calling it "the Q", but I don't think I have ever used "Progressive Field"..... "the Prog"...... or whatever we are supposed to call it.  That stadium will always be "Jacobs Field" to me.

 

Agreed about Jacobs, and my attachment to "Cleveland Browns Stadium" is even stronger.  I still call the arena Gund as well. 

 

I wish it was a company I could boycott buying the rights, because I would.

SunLife Stadium is built on sand and crushed seashells.

 

The fear of adding a roof is unwarranted. A roof weighs next to nothing compared to the stadium itself.

 

Foundations will be increased for more than just the weight of the roof.  wind loads?  snow loads?  $100 mill for this project, minimum.  The cost of upgrading the lighting & HVAC & the playing field would be over $50 million, without the roof & supports.  Adding a roof to Browns stadium will be no easy task due to the way it's built.  Other stadiums have a much more "enclosed" design which would require much less retrofit

Does the city/county get anything from the naming rights deal? It is OUR stadium that WE payed for and that WE maintain!

$100 million is very doable. I hope they do. That can is a waste of valuable space. Worst site selection process. Ever.

I wouldn't let yourself get too worked up about it.  Adding a $100 million roof to that can isn't going to make it any less of a waste either.  I think there's plenty of other wasted spaces to focus on.  Like this one perhaps: http://www.wolsteincenter.com/all-upcoming-events.aspx

Honestly the best bang for our buck upgrade would be turf. That way we could do things regularly like HS football Double headers on Saturdays, MAC football games, more than one concert a year, etc etc.

 

Blasphemous? Yes, but practical.

 

Or we could leave the grass and do all those things and have a homefield  advantage like Heinz Field. The grass there falls out faster than the hair on my balding head.

I wouldn't let yourself get too worked up about it.  Adding a $100 million roof to that can isn't going to make it any less of a waste either.  I think there's plenty of other wasted spaces to focus on.  Like this one perhaps: http://www.wolsteincenter.com/all-upcoming-events.aspx

 

I dont see the relevance.  CBS and Wolstein are to vastly different venues.

My getting worked up over it consisted of my typing those words. After I finished typing and sending, that was the extent of my getting worked up over it. Thanks for your concern.

 

Interesting discussion on 92.3 just now regarding stadiums. The pace of change among NFL venues is increasing, and relatively new stadiums like Atlanta's (built 1992) or Miami's (built 1987) are targets for replacement or major modification. There was general consensus among 92.3's sportcasters (Andy Baskin, Jeff Phelps, Daryl Ruiter) that Cleveland Browns Stadium will probably be replaced in 15-20 years since it was so cheaply and quickly built. They guessed it would probably cost more to make our stadium competitive among NFL players, coaches, advertisers etc. compared to all the NFL stadiums they visit than it would to build a new one.

I wouldn't let yourself get too worked up about it.  Adding a $100 million roof to that can isn't going to make it any less of a waste either.  I think there's plenty of other wasted spaces to focus on.  Like this one perhaps: http://www.wolsteincenter.com/all-upcoming-events.aspx

 

I dont see the relevance.  CBS and Wolstein are to vastly different venues.

 

Of course, but they're both big sports venues which occupy some valuable downtown real estate and provide little in return while sitting empty the vast majority of the time. 

So, it's official, FirstEnergy Stadium

To put it another way, how many potential events are we missing out on by not having a roof over the stadium? (I'd wager very few.)

 

Of those events, are there really that many that couldn't fit into the Q or the Wolstein instead?