14 hours ago, coneflower said:

 

Even if I go with your assertion that it needs $600M in repairs, that still seems like a better deal than spending $2B+ on a completely new building. It’d be like owning an old house that needs a lot of work and deciding rather than fix it, you’re going to spend twice as much to build a new house. 
 

Now, if you tell me the stadium repairs are only going to extend the stadium’s life 5 years, that doesn’t sound like a good idea anymore. But can you get 15+ more years out of it? That’s almost to the point when they’d be asking to replace or renovate a NEW stadium. This is the kind of stuff that voters need to understand, assuming we get any vote in the matter. 

 

 

"This is the kind of stuff that voters need to understand, assuming we get any vote in the matter." Jimmy has made it clear he does not want the new stadium on a ballot. He's a crook in every way. 

13 hours ago, NorthShore647 said:

The people of Brookpark have spoken out in opposition to a ..... gas station.

 

This isn't particularly noteworthy (its pretty standard in terms of typical American suburban NIMYism around something like a gas station). It is however a reminder that suburban residents are often resistant to even small changes in their communities. If there is more movement/discussion towards the Brookpark stadium going forward, we could possibly see the formation of Brookpark resident opposition to the project. Even if it is a small group of city residents, they can still be pretty influential over city councilors and the mayor due to the (relatively) small electorate. An incumbent councilmember lost their seat by some 200 votes last year. 

 

 

Opponents circle the wagons against proposed Brook Park Circle K

Maura Zurick - Cleveland.com - 9-9-24

 

"Residents raised concerns about potential health hazards from gasoline fumes, groundwater contamination and increased traffic. ... Councilman Tom Dufour was also vocal in his opposition, citing the already crowded intersection as a primary issue."

If Brookpark residents are this adamant against increased traffic from a gas station, you would have to think they would be completely against the traffic that a 70,000 seat stadium would bring. 

2 hours ago, TBideon said:

What kind of question is that? Poster made some good points, provided links, and we've all heard anecdotally that the stadium is structurally s**t. The fact that no one has been injured there, yet, is some barometer of quality. 

 

Anecdotes about the structural integrity of a 60k seat stadium? I haven’t heard any. The links related to a couple of flooding issues. Everybody knows that if your house has any issues after 26 years you better tear the whole thing down and build another one for $2 billion dollars.  There is no hard evidence that the stadium is in any type of bad condition. 

14 hours ago, coneflower said:

 

Even if I go with your assertion that it needs $600M in repairs, that still seems like a better deal than spending $2B+ on a completely new building. It’d be like owning an old house that needs a lot of work and deciding rather than fix it, you’re going to spend twice as much to build a new house. 
 

Now, if you tell me the stadium repairs are only going to extend the stadium’s life 5 years, that doesn’t sound like a good idea anymore. But can you get 15+ more years out of it? That’s almost to the point when they’d be asking to replace or renovate a NEW stadium. This is the kind of stuff that voters need to understand, assuming we get any vote in the matter.

EVERY infrastructure project with public dollars should be required to consider the maintenance cost 20-years forward.  If the city is going to "own" a stadium, we should insist on construction practices that reduce future maintenance.

3 hours ago, marty15 said:

Yeah, I’ve been to the stadium quite a few times the last couple years and have seen zero sign of crumbling concrete. And you would see it, the superstructure is completely exposed. 
 

Also, Building & House and CFD would demand its immediate attention and repair. Screened/covered protection would have to be put in place overhead. Also, it would be clear where repairs were done. 

 

Complete B.S.

From my experience there the "crumbling" issues are on the ramps, which are being addressed (and also far less heavily trafficed after the installation of the upper level escalators years ago)

15 minutes ago, Foraker said:

EVERY infrastructure project with public dollars should be required to consider the maintenance cost 20-years forward.  If the city is going to "own" a stadium, we should insist on construction practices that reduce future maintenance.

Agree, but there is no 20 year maintenance free human made structure. It doesn’t exist. A valve failing after 18 years, or a pipe bursting during an -17 degree cold snap are not structural issues, or issues related to it being a “rushed” or VE’d project.

 

Also, this structure has to withstand 70 thousand rowdy drunk people at a time. You’re going to have issues. They’ll happen to the next stadium as well.

26 minutes ago, Foraker said:

EVERY infrastructure project with public dollars should be required to consider the maintenance cost 20-years forward.  If the city is going to "own" a stadium, we should insist on construction practices that reduce future maintenance.

 

It would be interesting to know if a roof would reduce future maintenance costs. Does anyone trust there will be an unbiased and thoughtful cost-benefit analysis? 

 

I don't. 

18 hours ago, Zagapi said:

Its a damn death trap and its been known for at least a decade.

 

A... "death trap?" C'mon. 

1 hour ago, AsDustinFoxWouldSay said:

15 hours ago, NorthShore647 said:

The people of Brookpark have spoken out in opposition to a ..... gas station.

 

This isn't particularly noteworthy (its pretty standard in terms of typical American suburban NIMYism around something like a gas station). It is however a reminder that suburban residents are often resistant to even small changes in their communities. If there is more movement/discussion towards the Brookpark stadium going forward, we could possibly see the formation of Brookpark resident opposition to the project. Even if it is a small group of city residents, they can still be pretty influential over city councilors and the mayor due to the (relatively) small electorate. An incumbent councilmember lost their seat by some 200 votes last year. 

 

 

Opponents circle the wagons against proposed Brook Park Circle K

Maura Zurick - Cleveland.com - 9-9-24

 

"Residents raised concerns about potential health hazards from gasoline fumes, groundwater contamination and increased traffic. ... Councilman Tom Dufour was also vocal in his opposition, citing the already crowded intersection as a primary issue."

Expand  

If Brookpark residents are this adamant against increased traffic from a gas station, you would have to think they would be completely against the traffic that a 70,000 seat stadium would bring. 

 

Yeah I think the project just hasn't moved far enough along yet for residents to consider what affects it would actually have on their city during events. 

 

Even with millions in roadway modifications to the stadium site, there will still be a lot of spillover into the adjoining neighborhoods. Hummel, Engle and adjoining neighborhood streets will block right up. Does Brookpark ban on street parking in the neighborhoods on gameday? Can residents rent out their driveways and front yards for stadium parking? How is traffic and overflow parking managed by a city with 37 police officers? Do local officials have the resources to plan for these events?

2 hours ago, marty15 said:

Agree, but there is no 20 year maintenance free human made structure. It doesn’t exist. A valve failing after 18 years, or a pipe bursting during an -17 degree cold snap are not structural issues, or issues related to it being a “rushed” or VE’d project.

 

Also, this structure has to withstand 70 thousand rowdy drunk people at a time. You’re going to have issues. They’ll happen to the next stadium as well.

If people knew the maintenance and concrete repair budgets of The Shoe down in Columbus, they'd say it should be torn down too. Obviously it's not paid for by the city though. 

 

Every stadium or large project needs constant, and expensive, repairs. Sofi and Allegiant have already had $10+ million in projects and maintenance as well. Sofi is already changing the layout of some portions of the stadium. The maintenance budget for a new dome will be much higher than the current stadium. Obviously in the first 10 years it will likely be less, but the costs at the 15-20 year mark when whoever owns the team at the time wants to refresh everything, new amenities, along with other roof and concrete repairs will make this look like nothing. 

Edited September 11, 2024Sep 11 by PlanCleveland

Stadium Tidbits https://fox8.com/news/i-team/new-developments-in-browns-stadium-talks-i-team/

18 hours ago, simplythis said:

Stadium Tidbits https://fox8.com/news/i-team/new-developments-in-browns-stadium-talks-i-team/

That really didn't reveal anything I expected fix 8 to have big new details.

Cincinnati unveils its stadium plans. 1.2 Billion but includes reconfiguration of the surrounding area and a new team HQ that would free up lots of space inside the stadium. I would assume the Cleveland plan would be similar if the browns renovated? I’m very interested to see what the state and NFL funding for both of these projects will be. It would make sense for the state to just knock both out at the same time.

 

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2024/09/17/paycor-stadium-renovations-whats-changing-how-much-will-it-cost/75172251007/

 

 

Edited September 17, 2024Sep 17 by 646empire

42 minutes ago, 646empire said:

Cincinnati unveils its stadium plans. 1.2 Billion but includes reconfiguration of the surrounding area and a new team HQ that would free up lots of space inside the stadium. I would assume the Cleveland plan would be similar if the browns renovated? I’m very interested to see what the state and NFL funding for both of these projects will be. It would make sense for the state to just knock both out at the same time.

 

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2024/09/17/paycor-stadium-renovations-whats-changing-how-much-will-it-cost/75172251007/

 

 

Exterior wise, $1.2 Billion doesn't get you much. The exterior renderings are nice, looks like the major focus was the club area though which sucks. 

56 minutes ago, MyPhoneDead said:

Exterior wise, $1.2 Billion doesn't get you much. The exterior renderings are nice, looks like the major focus was the club area though which sucks. 

Cincy is a bit lucky that the stadium still looks pretty modern and doesn’t need much exterior work. Club seating/lux experiences is definitely the focus in all new and renovated sports venues right now. Thats where the money is made.

Isnt this just a tie over for a couple years and then they’re coming back to ask for a new stadium?

 
the biggest change here is the practice and HQ they’ve been the laugh of the league for years 

Edited September 17, 2024Sep 17 by BoomerangCleRes

16 minutes ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

Isnt this just a tie over for a couple years and then they’re coming back to ask for a new stadium?

 
the biggest change here is the practice and HQ they’ve been the laugh of the league for years 

A tie over for a couple years at 1.2 Billion dollars? No lol. The Bengals and Gov has said no to a new stadium. The Bengals are def behind on the Practice/HQ  facilities. The changes to the interior will be pretty dramatic it’s currently very grey and dated. The reason it doesn’t look dramatic speaks to the fact the stadium mostly needs high end cosmetic work not a full rip out rebuild. These designs will certainly be refined as things are finalized.

Edited September 17, 2024Sep 17 by 646empire

Saw a funny quote from the Hamilton county president after meeting with governor Mike Dewine

 

“you can’t give everything to Cleveland and leave us with the scraps”

16 minutes ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

Saw a funny quote from the Hamilton county president after meeting with governor Mike Dewine

 

“you can’t give everything to Cleveland and leave us with the scraps”

I think he has us confused with Columbus lol

11 minutes ago, MyPhoneDead said:

I think he has us confused with Columbus lol

lol yeah I was thinking the same thing, even then it’s a new arena that Cincy really needs, the big stadium events like Taylor Swift etc are booking Cincy. 

Edited September 17, 2024Sep 17 by 646empire

The Dome Build on Builders Exchange. https://fox8.com/news/i-team-construction-companies-eyeing-possible-dome-build-for-the-browns/

Another good quote from the Hamilton county consultant for river development

 

 

”There is not a funding model that can get us to $2.5 billion dollars (for a new stadium) within our community,”

 

here’s the article btw 

https://www.daytondailynews.com/sports/new-images-of-13-billion-makeover-proposed-for-bengals-stadium/26L6P5NE7JCEXLUOH2Y2UWAHUM/

 

22 minutes ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

Another good quote from the Hamilton county consultant for river development

 

 

”There is not a funding model that can get us to $2.5 billion dollars (for a new stadium) within our community,”

 

here’s the article btw 

https://www.daytondailynews.com/sports/new-images-of-13-billion-makeover-proposed-for-bengals-stadium/26L6P5NE7JCEXLUOH2Y2UWAHUM/

 

And zero public support for a new stadium this time around (but heavy support for a renovation). It’s actually pretty refreshing to go with a more sensible approach. Will be interesting to see the final projects come together for both the browns and bengals. 

Edited September 18, 2024Sep 18 by 646empire

End of the day, all that matters is who's paying for it. All the flashy, repetitive, AI'ish presentations in the world don't matter until that bill is settled.

 

Maybe mayors should start having referendums on these matters, gauge if the public is willing to pay for all these luxury suites or "transformative" improvements.

 

"The firm released a capital assessment report in April 2022, recommending $493.7 million in basic repairs to the aging structure such as fixing steel rails and ramps, replacing seats and upgrading electric and plumbing systems."

 

Jesus Christ, how is it that Cleveland Municipal stadium lasted 65 years without killing anyone, yet all of these 25-year-old stadiums need endless, taxpayer subsidies for repairs/maintenance. Whoever is building these money pits in the first place doesn't seem to be doing a particularly good job.

 

Edited September 18, 2024Sep 18 by TBideon

20 minutes ago, TBideon said:

. Whoever is building these money pits in the first place doesn't seem to be doing a particularly good job.

 

That is most everything public infrastructure these days.   The lowest bidder tends to water-down the concrete! 

31 minutes ago, TBideon said:

End of the day, all that matters is who's paying for it. All the flashy, repetitive, AI'ish presentations in the world don't matter until that bill is settled.

 

Maybe mayors should start having referendums on these matters, gauge if the public is willing to pay for all these luxury suites or "transformative" improvements.

 

"The firm released a capital assessment report in April 2022, recommending $493.7 million in basic repairs to the aging structure such as fixing steel rails and ramps, replacing seats and upgrading electric and plumbing systems."

 

Jesus Christ, how is it that Cleveland Municipal stadium lasted 65 years without killing anyone, yet all of these 25-year-old stadiums need endless, taxpayer subsidies for repairs/maintenance. Whoever is building these money pits in the first place doesn't seem to be doing a particularly good job.

 

Is planned obsolescence creeping it's way into stadiums now too?

a lot of the junky old stadiums form the 60s and 70s didn't last that long, either.  Three rivers was demolished after 30 years.  

11 minutes ago, Whipjacka said:

a lot of the junky old stadiums

 

By “junky” and “old” what you mean is: facilities where the owners weren’t maximizing revenue at the expense of the public.

29 minutes ago, Whipjacka said:

a lot of the junky old stadiums form the 60s and 70s didn't last that long, either.  Three rivers was demolished after 30 years.  

There was nothing wrong with Three Rivers, Riverfront Stadium, or Fulton County Stadium. Owners demanded more revenue and control over the facility. and they didn't wanna pay for it.

1 hour ago, PlanCleveland said:

Is planned obsolescence creeping it's way into stadiums now too?

If stadium developers are sabatoging their deliverables, then cities need to investigate and file claims against the companies, subcontractors, prior administrations, whoever. 

1 minute ago, TBideon said:

If stadium developers are sabatoging their deliverables, then cities need to investigate and file claims against the companies, subcontractors, prior administrations, whoever. 

Sorry, that was just a joke. It's hard to mark something as sarcastic online...

 

Hopefully this isn't really happening though. 

On 9/18/2024 at 8:37 AM, TBideon said:

...how is it that Cleveland Municipal stadium lasted 65 years without killing anyone, yet all of these 25-year-old stadiums need endless, taxpayer subsidies for repairs/maintenance. Whoever is building these money pits in the first place doesn't seem to be doing a particularly good job.

 

And wasn't the old stadium built in 366 days? I thought the reason for the sad state of the current stadium was the rush to build it. To be fair though, the old stadium did get it's share of repairs.

On 9/18/2024 at 9:48 AM, Gordon Bombay said:

 

By “junky” and “old” what you mean is: facilities where the owners weren’t maximizing revenue at the expense of the public.

Most of those old stadiums were multi-sport/multi-purpose. The newer stadiums are mostly single sport, seats are designed for viewing football and are closer to the field. Most probably don't have structural posts blocking views either. 

8 hours ago, TMart said:

And wasn't the old stadium built in 366 days? I thought the reason for the sad state of the current stadium was the rush to build it. To be fair though, the old stadium did get it's share of repairs.

Were labor unions prominent when the old stadium was built? That definitely could have contributed to the fast build.

1 hour ago, MyPhoneDead said:

Were labor unions prominent when the old stadium was built? That definitely could have contributed to the fast build.

It was the middle of the Great Depression and labor was cheap.

Different time too. The Empire State Building only took a year and a month to build. 

 

Absolutely unfathomable today. Cities are basically tombs of different eras.

This comment may partially overlap with the Burke thread but...is it too soon to hope for similar same next door to a new/renovated Huntington Bank Stadium and associated development with nature preserve (jointly with Metroparks and Natural History Museum).  Why not us too?  See Huntington Bank Pavilion at Northerly Island (former Miegs Field a la our Burke situation) 

https://www.huntingtonbankpavilion.com/

 

1 hour ago, Willo said:

This comment may partially overlap with the Burke thread but...is it too soon to hope for similar same next door to a new/renovated Huntington Bank Stadium and associated development with nature preserve (jointly with Metroparks and Natural History Museum).  Why not us too?  See Huntington Bank Pavilion at Northerly Island (former Miegs Field a la our Burke situation) 

https://www.huntingtonbankpavilion.com/

 

I don't think the two stadiums are equivalent. The proposed soccer stadium is tiny compared to what the Browns will want, and it is located next to two other much larger stadiums served by plenty of parking. A newly built Huntington stadium at Burke would have comparatively little parking within a short walk range, at least for a stadium of it's size. CSG can basically propose a new stadium with almost no new parking; the Browns can't (and won't) do that. As a result, a new football stadium and a large lakefront park won't be good neighbors. 

 

As an aside, I don't understand how it was universally agreed in this forum not that long ago that a lakefront stadium was a bad idea, now it seems the majority opinion is to build a new lakefront stadium several hundred yards East. I don't understand it. This seems to me like a learn from past mistakes situation, but I guess the specter  of the Browns leaving Cleveland proper is enough to get people to consider using lakefront land for a stadium. 

15 minutes ago, Ethan said:

As an aside, I don't understand how it was universally agreed in this forum not that long ago that a lakefront stadium was a bad idea, now it seems the majority opinion is to build a new lakefront stadium several hundred yards East. I don't understand it. This seems to me like a learn from past mistakes situation, but I guess the specter  of the Browns leaving Cleveland proper is enough to get people to consider using lakefront land for a stadium. 

Well, I think many were opposed to a stadium at the current site.  But a new stadium on the Burke property is a bit different.  Yes, it would still be on the lakefront, but it would be farther away from the heart of downtown.   It would open up the current stadium site for development as well as the area surrounding the new stadium. The building height restrictions imposed by the FAA for Burke would be eliminated.  So Burke finally goes away and the stadium remains in Cleveland.  That sounds like a win win.

22 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

Well, I think many were opposed to a stadium at the current site.  But a new stadium on the Burke property is a bit different.  Yes, it would still be on the lakefront, but it would be farther away from the heart of downtown.   It would open up the current stadium site for development as well as the area surrounding the new stadium. The building height restrictions imposed by the FAA for Burke would be eliminated.  So Burke finally goes away and the stadium remains in Cleveland.  That sounds like a win win.

Downtowns grow. When a the original stadium was built at the current location I'm sure it seemed a lot further from the downtown core than it does now. Ironically, if we do opt to build a new stadium at Burke and we don't come to regret it 100 years from now that would be sort of sad, as it would suggest Cleveland has stagnated and the downtown didn't grow. 

 

 

To be clear, the stadium itself isn't the problem. We could spare 12-15 acres for a stadium out of the hundreds at Burke. The travesty would be 100-200 acres of parking that would inevitably come with it. Even 50 acres of parking on the lakefront sounds like too much to me. It's also important to note that the City wants to develop the surface lots north of the stadium and at least parts of the muni lot (~40 address total) If we just move the stadium east that parking will have to either remain or move with the stadium. Plus the fact that Burke is somewhat less accessible to downtown parking garages from the current location means that more parking will have to be built. I don't think a minimal parking scenario is realistic for a Burke stadium, and this I oppose it. There's a large opportunity cost to putting the stadium at Burke, and most of that will be due to the inevitable reality of stadium parking. 

^ Was it universally agreed that a lakefront stadium was a poor location? I don't think so. Anyway, as @LibertyBlvd said, having it placed on Burke is a whole new ballgame. I think it has been universally agreed that closing Burke leads to a whole bunch of potentially great possibilities including a new Browns stadium. 

 

As an aside, when it was announced that Haslam wanted to build a dome in BP many of us questioned where those billions were coming from. I for one didn't think the State was going to pony up hundreds of millions and now that Cincinnati has entered the picture saying " What about us." I'm even more convinced that unless Haslam wants to take on much more of the spending load, we're going to see what l think is the best option - namely a refurbished stadium on the lakefront. We could see a new open air facility at Burke but the timelines don't appear to add up. 

 

Let's just repurpose our big brother Chicago's plan and replace just Chicago stadium and nature preserve with Cleveland. Too easy yes?

 

https://www.chicagoconstructionnews.com/bears-unveil-plans-for-new-lakefront-stadium-in-chicagos-burnham-park-project/

 

Which is across from their new Nature Preserve on former Mieg's field airport.  These images should help our small-thinking politicians and community leaders who don't have the vision thing like most here do.  We can dream in the interim...

 

 

 

Edited September 20, 2024Sep 20 by Willo

I-Team talks to mayor Bibb. https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mlb/i-team-goes-to-the-mayor-about-browns-stadium-talks/vi-AA1qVFE9?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=aaafa4b4e9d14b69911a85c2258b72fc&ei=10

16 hours ago, cadmen said:

we're going to see what l think is the best option - namely a refurbished stadium on the lakefront. We could see a new open air facility at Burke but the timelines don't appear to add up. 

 

Given the lifespan of stadiums in the modern NFL, I think the timelines match up pretty well. Based on what I've read on here, closing Burke will take years since we'd likely need to find a smaller regional airport and build a new runway and improve facilities there to be the new reliever airport for Hopkins. Then we're looking at a another year or two for land stabilization possibly since it was mostly drudged infill? And then another few years to construct the "Haslam World" with a stadium, hotel, retail, parking, etc.

 

All told, I would say from announcing the closure plan for Burke to opening a new stadium it's probably a 7-10 year project

 

Put in the money on the current stadium to make all necessary repairs and provide a few rehabs/upgrades, with the vision that these are just a 7-10 year band-aid while the new area and stadium are built. The old stadium will be over 30 years old by that point, which as I alluded to earlier, is pretty old by modern NFL standards.

^ Well my point about timelines and Burke was that in the near future a refurbished stadium is the logical choice. Now lF we're talking long term then sure, we could put in some money on the existing stadium that would buy us 10 years or so until a brand new facility is built on the Burke land. 

 

If that was the plan we would be counting on a lot of "ifs." We could do that if that if Burke is closed. If Haslam doesn't move to BP. If the landfill under Burke is stable enough. If Haslam is willing to wait all those years and if all parties come to an agreement. That's a lot of ifs that need to happen. Not saying it can't happen, just saying the logical and easier decision is to just refurbish the existing stadium and call it a day.

Outside of it being an interesting conversation, I don't know why you guys bother discussing a Burke move so much. It feels like Internet lore that's been given disproportionate and unwarranted credibility.

 

Jimmy hasn't discussed a Burke move, the city hasn't, and frankly I don't see the financial benefits compared to the costs even if it all worked out. The complexities of Cleveland seizing and repurposing the property could lead to years (decades?) of litigation even before they begin years (decades?) of land modifications to make it usable. That's a lot of effort for questionable benefit.

 

And it isn't like the city and developers do a particularly good job utilizing the river and lake as it is. The Flats are significantly empty. The lots surrounding Browns stadium are mostly empty. Wendy Park and Gordon Park are undertilized.  For a variety of reasons the demand for commercial developments don't seem to exist downtown, so why should the city spend billions of dollars and years/decades attempting yet another if-we-build-it-maybe-they'll-come project.

 

Also, separately, the Browns should not be the reason Cleveland repurposes Burke but rather there are credible studies that the land can be monetized in a way that financially benefits the city for decades. Desperation to keep the Browns is not it. 

 

And there are a lot of assumptions Jimmy would move there. If he wants a dome, he's simply not getting one in his lifetime at Burke with this decade/decades-long fantasy of converting the land into something usable. He would get to see one in Brookpark or another city, however.

 

Like I said, fun topic but I think it's gotten a lot more traction online more than anything.

 

 

3 hours ago, daybreaker said:

 

Based on what I've read on here, closing Burke will take years since we'd likely need to find a smaller regional airport and build a new runway and improve facilities there to be the new reliever airport for Hopkins. .

I'm not an FAA expert or anything, but what qualifies to be a reliever airport? Akron-Fulton airport is only 30 miles from Hopkins, that's only like 5 minutes away in an airliner traveling 500 mph. From Google maps that airport looks equivalent to Burke, if not bigger. 

 

I don't understand why closing Burke is so impossible. Seems like a perfect option for the stadium and a lot of other things. 

If the behind-the-scenes power moves undeway do shut Burke for good the proposals to develop- short-term and long-term - could flood in.  Already one by one "they" are starting to step out of the shadows in support:

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2024/09/cleveland-chamber-chief-supports-urgent-closure-of-burke-lakefront-airport.html

So as discussed by others above, a short-term paint and bondo rehab paired with the desired new dome construction and Jimmy NFL village next door (on just the western part of the giant footprint) could be irresistable to Jimmy as a wild card option.

 

..and dispersing Burke's functions does not necessarily need just one airport (Cuyahoga County).  We have many in the 5 county region easiliy ready to go and would likely love additonal FAA funds.  One of them is nearby east fom Burke as the crow flies along the shore - Lake County Executive Airport - is aggressivley growing and seeking business:

https://ldauthority.org/transportation/airport/

https://www.news-herald.com/2024/09/20/lake-county-executive-airport-terminal-building-project-set-to-move-forward/

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2024/02/cleveland-hopkins-lake-county-airports-awarded-millions-in-federal-cash-for-improvements.html

Burke is large enough for a stadium, village and parking with enough land left over for other developments including a park. Of course none of this will happen immediately, if at all. That's why l said the timelines don't add up for a new Browns stadium anytime soon. It's just one of many possibilities over several decades IF Burke is closed. 

 

But if it IS closed the clock starts ticking on those possibilities.

And I assume the muni lot would still be available for parking/tailgating, although it would require a pedestrian bridge over the shoreway.

 

Edited September 22, 2024Sep 22 by LibertyBlvd