Sometimes it's a waste of time to debate in hindsight where and what sports facilities should be built. But sometimes it's helpful to learn from the past and, if applicable, from our mistakes. And none seems to generate more debate than the placement of Cleveland Browns Stadium. And based on these comments, including mine, the debate over this and other facilities continues....

 

Also.. Browns fans would have revolted if the stadium was built anywhere but the old site.

 

Why? Because of the history? The Cleveland Browns' 50 years (as of 1996 or so when the site decision was made) isn't a lot of history. Long-time Browns fans like me who had been going to the old stadium since the 1970s or earlier hated the site. The access (you could approach the stadium from only two directions -- south and east) was bad and much of the parking was lost when North Coast Harbor was built in the late 1980s.

 

That's probably true.  I was a kid then and wasn't paying much attention, but I thought, "Well where else would you put it?" 

 

That kind of naive thinking is actually kind of legitimate looking at it in retrospect.  Lots of people complain about the placement of the new stadium but I've never heard any well-thought arguments for other sites.  I'll stop before I go farther off-topic.

 

There were two competing sites for the new Browns Stadium -- the old site and the Norfolk Southern site. The NS site is a former railyard just south of the Inner Belt and Jacobs Field along Ontario/Broadway. The stadium was proposed to be built over the rapid transit tracks with a station built in the basement, with parking decks built between the stadium and the Inner Belt. However, the costs for this site was slightly higher because the land would have had to be purchased from NS whereas the old site was already owned by the city. Site preparation also would have taken a bit longer, putting its completion by 1999 in doubt. I don't buy this argument because the old stadium had to be demolished and disposed of. I have a site plan somewhere around here of the NS site which, by the way, is still vacant a decade later.

if you can find that old site plan and scan it (please), I'm sure we'd all love to see it.

that's also the site where later on wolstein, sr wanted to build a soccer stadium and then his convention center offer, no?

Correct.

 

if you can find that old site plan and scan it (please), I'm sure we'd all love to see it.

 

OK. I've got some good news and bad news. The good news is that, after searching through files for the past 40 minutes, I found the proposal for Browns Stadium at the NS site (I also found the original proposal for the lakefront site -- it's different than what was actually built).

 

The bad news is my scanner died a more than a month ago and I haven't replaced it. I'll try to get it scanned at the office tomorrow.

 

I also found lots of articles going back to the 1980s on numerous development projects, most of which were built (except for the Dual Hub rail line/subway, convention center, and a few smaller projects).

Very exciting. Can't wait to see them.

 

So if the velodrome is built, and CSU's Diving Pavilion, plus Wolstein's soccer stadium, we should have a decent infrastructure in place to host the Olympics... or something similar.

^and a more extensive rapid transit system.

 

Nothing says go crazy building rail lines like a major event (SLC, Houston, Athens, etc.)

There was another article in the same day's paper on the subject of site location for Browns Stadium, but I don't know what the headline was. Can you find/post it?

Thanks for opening this thread; as I said I was pretty young when all this went down.  So the east side transit lines seem to go right through this area.  Any idea how that would have worked?

 

It's funny because I was going to post something along the lines of "absent rail/trolley lines, is there any way to build a stadium/arena that treats its urban surroundings well?"

 

It seems very difficult to pick sites for these buildings.  Gateway worked out well, nestled in the southern corner of downtown.  Access to a Browns Stadium in the armpit of the innerbelt (that's been discussed so much in the "Grander Vision" thread) is another story.

There was another article in the same day's paper on the subject of site location for Browns Stadium, but I don't know what the headline was. Can you find/post it?

 

Still looking.

Here ya go...

 

The conceptual plan for Browns Stadium at the Norfolk Southern site...

 

 

The original conceptual plan for Browns Stadium at the prior stadium's site...

 

Also.. Browns fans would have revolted if the stadium was built anywhere but the old site.

 

Why? Because of the history? The Cleveland Browns' 50 years (as of 1996 or so when the site decision was made) isn't a lot of history.

 

Besides...the Indians moved locations and there was no revolt...and they had been at Municipal Stadium much longer than the Browns had been in Cleveland.

Besides...the Indians moved locations and there was no revolt...and they had been at Municipal Stadium much longer than the Browns had been in Cleveland.

 

Sort of. The Indians didn't play full time at the Cleveland Municipal Stadium. In fact, for 15 years after the stadium opened in 1932, the Indians played their weekday games at League Park. Usually only weekend and holiday games were played at Municipal Stadium. So the Browns played full time at the stadium for longer than the Indians had -- by one year.

Not to mention for about a decade or more before the Jake, they couldn't give away Indians tickets. I remember one game CMS in the 80's the place was almost empty. Then about 10,000 people showed up for the Joe Walsh concert after the game. Although it took about 70,000+ the make CMS look for full anyway.

If you look at the Ns site,perhaps the innerbelt could have been moved at that time and the stadium could have been within the gateway district.

 

 

Here ya go...

 

The conceptual plan for Browns Stadium at the Norfolk Southern site...

 

 

The original conceptual plan for Browns Stadium at the prior stadium's site...

 

The mindset at the time was a little frenetic.  Browns fans in general had the feeling of something taken from them and there was a strong sentiment and fight to keep a sense of continuity from the old Browns franchise.  Remember the hubbub about keeping the name and colors and even the franchise's history within the city.  There were some who wanted to start anew, but I don't remember that opposition lasting very long.  This feeling probably carried over to the stadium; I remember feeling it somewhat too, being sadly aware that the times had passed CMS by and that a new stadium was needed, but that we could put the new stadium right where the old one was and it would be like we hadn't missed a beat.

 

Sentimental, yes, but that's how people are.

 

The NS site looks intriguing.  I remember those days when it seemed the PD would never get color graphics on their pages.  An underground rapid station, delicious. 

 

And wow, look at that Lakefront proposal bridge the Shoreway.  What a neat idea.  :-)

Should this thread be in completed / abandoned projects

 

(just kissing moderator butt)

I was thinking the same thing.  It appears to be a discussion of both completed AND abandoned projects.

I agree with Matches that from a fan’s prospective that symbolism was a contributing factor in the placement of CBS. I don’t regret that CBS was built on the former site of CMS. I think the original conceptual plan with the north/south placement instead of east/west would have been a mistake.

 

The Norfolk Southern site is intriguing but wouldn’t that site have been at a lower elevation than the Jake?

Should this thread be in completed / abandoned projects

 

(just kissing moderator butt)

 

I was thinking the same thing.  It appears to be a discussion of both completed AND abandoned projects.

 

 

What about future sports facilities and those from time gone by?

 

My intention with this thread is to discuss any all issues relating to sports facilities in Cleveland. Like Musky said, it could include future facilities.

 

I agree with Matches that from a fans prospective that symbolism was a contributing factor in the placement of CBS. I dont regret that CBS was built on the former site of CMS. I think the original conceptual plan with the north/south placement instead of east/west would have been a mistake.

 

My problem with putting a football stadium on the lakefront is that it gets used only 10 times per year -- maybe 12-15 times when other sporting events and concerts are included. What a waste of precious space -- I was under the impression the stadium would be used much more than this when sites were debated 11 years ago. If I knew then what I know now....

 

The Norfolk Southern site is intriguing but wouldnt that site have been at a lower elevation than the Jake?

 

And that's a problem because.... ?

 

My problem with putting a football stadium on the lakefront is that it gets used only 10 times per year -- maybe 12-15 times when other sporting events and concerts are included. What a waste of precious space -- I was under the impression the stadium would be used much more than this when sites were debated 11 years ago. If I knew then what I know now....

 

 

There were 6 non-football events that I can recall this year at the stadium.

In the past there has been a multi-day bridal event in the spring plus several homecomings/proms... not sure if it happened this year. The restaurant/club is often rented out for private parties too.

My problem with putting a football stadium on the lakefront is that it gets used only 10 times per year -- maybe 12-15 times when other sporting events and concerts are included. What a waste of precious space -- I was under the impression the stadium would be used much more than this when sites were debated 11 years ago. If I knew then what I know now....

 

In hindsight where would have been the ideal location?

 

And that's a problem because.... ?

 

Aesthetics. I'm not saying its a problem, I just have hard time picturing CBS with this "above" it...

 

Depends also how large/tall CBS would have been at the NS site.

I just remembered another facility - Cleveland Public Auditorium.

If it could be done again, where would you guys have wanted the Browns stadium to have been built?  I think that it should have been clustered with the Q and the Jake personally.

With all due respect, hindsight is 20/20.  It's done.  It's there.  It's not moving.  AND we've had this discussion before.  You might to search some other Cleveland specific threads for comments.

 

Personally, I feel this topic is going to rehash/regurgitate previous conversations/discussion and then go wildly off topic about other issues related to planning and development in the city.

I wanted it to be built in L.A...    :wink:

 

 

There ya go MTS!

I actually wanted it to be built on the lake in the same location.  But I was young and dumb at the time and just thought it was cool to go to games by the lake.  And I liked the weather that the lake created for some of those December and January games.

 

If I had to do it over again I'm not sure where I would put it.  Maybe down in the flats where steelyard commons currently is.  Steel mills as a backdrop... now that's cool.  Maybe on Scranton Peninsula?  I don't know... never gave it much thought.

I wanted it to be built in L.A...    ;)

 

 

There ya go MTS!

 

If built in LA with no team it would look like this!

 

Off topic after 4 posts, an UO record.

mmm slimjim goalposts....

Off topic after 4 posts, an UO record.

I really doubt that's a record.

Remember Modell owned the land where South Park Mall is in Strongsville.  Throught the late 70's and 80's, he wanted to build there similar to the way the Bills did in Orchard park.

Remember Modell owned the land where South Park Mall is in Strongsville. Throught the late 70's and 80's, he wanted to build there similar to the way the Bills did in Orchard park.

 

Well thank god for small miracles...

I would've built it in Berea next to the staph-infected practice facility. 

There were two Browns Stadium locations proposed after the team left in 1995:

 

1. the existing Municipal Stadium site.

2. the Norfolk Southern intermodal yard site.

 

Of the two, I liked #2. For those not familiar with it, the site is just west of the Broadway-East 9th intersection. The site was ideal because it was next to the Inner Belt and I-77, and the stadium was to be have been built over the Red, Blue and Green Rapid lines. NS abanonded the site because their intermodal (adj: linking two modes of transportation -- truck and rail) business had outgrown the site. NS built a new intermodal facility in Maple Heights just south of I-480.

 

Anyway, since the Browns play at home only 10 times a year, and the stadium draws only a couple of other events per year, I thought this was the perfect site for a huge facility that was seldom used, but when it did it would require large traffic flow capacity. It wasn't going to be used enough to generate spin-off benefits such as surrounding restaurants, clubs, hotels, etc. within walking distance like Gateway had. So the intermodal site didn't matter if it was hemmed in by highways, the river, rail lines, central postal office, etc.

 

The downside is that the site had no other infrastructure available -- water, sewer, telecommunications and electricity for such high capacity needs. True, that could have been built, but the powers-that-be wanted a site that could be quickly built. Once again, quick decisions often result in long-term regret.

 

I have a conceptual site plan from the mid-90s which shows what the stadium would have looked like there. When I come across it, I'll post it.

I wanted it to be built in L.A... ;)

 

 

There ya go MTS!

 

If built in LA with no team it would look like this!

 

Off topic after 4 posts, an UO record.

 

we already gave los angeles one team, the rams, and they couldn't hold on to them, so that's enough!

 

There were two Browns Stadium locations proposed after the team left in 1995:

 

1. the existing Municipal Stadium site.

2. the Norfolk Southern intermodal yard site.

 

Of the two, I liked #2. For those not familiar with it, the site is just west of the Broadway-East 9th intersection. The site was ideal because it was next to the Inner Belt and I-77, and the stadium was to be have been built over the Red, Blue and Green Rapid lines. NS abanonded the site because their intermodal (adj: linking two modes of transportation -- truck and rail) business had outgrown the site. NS built a new intermodal facility in Maple Heights just south of I-480.

 

Anyway, since the Browns play at home only 10 times a year, and the stadium draws only a couple of other events per year, I thought this was the perfect site for a huge facility that was seldom used, but when it did it would require large traffic flow capacity. It wasn't going to be used enough to generate spin-off benefits such as surrounding restaurants, clubs, hotels, etc. within walking distance like Gateway had. So the intermodal site didn't matter if it was hemmed in by highways, the river, rail lines, central postal office, etc.

 

The downside is that the site had no other infrastructure available -- water, sewer, telecommunications and electricity for such high capacity needs. True, that could have been built, but the powers-that-be wanted a site that could be quickly built. Once again, quick decisions often result in long-term regret.

 

I have a conceptual site plan from the mid-90s which shows what the stadium would have looked like there. When I come across it, I'll post it.

 

I know this is old but I remember seeing the plans on here somewhere but cant find them. Could you please repost them? Thanks!

Some may argue its not where 'real' football is played, but had the stadium been built with some sort of cover (dome or otherwise) the facility could have been used a lot more regardless of which site was built. Maybe in 20 years when they decide to build another Cleveland Browns stadium...

Hasn't there been at least the idea thrown out there for installation of a glass retractable roof on top of the existing stadium?  Surely, it is cost prohibitive, but I liked the concept.

^Yeah I think that was in 2006. I think the cost was $90 million.