14 minutes ago, Mendo said:

The Haslams can build at their own expense whatever they want.

Especially since they just set the market high AF on major sports franchise prices with the Milwaukee Bucks. Smart for them since they already "bought low" on an NFL team a decade ago.

 

If the Bucks are valued at nearly 4 billion, the Browns (or any NFL team) should be double that.

 

Sell off a 10-15 percent minority stake in the Browns and it should be the cash in hand to build a privately funded stadium. 

 

Yeah, it's more complicated than that and the Haslams will try to squeeze what they can out of this. But they are sitting on at least a couple billion on the Browns without losing controlling stake if they "need" cash to get a private stadium built.

 

Its gonna be very hard for them to cry about not having the ability to finance a new stadium privately after they just paid what they did in with the Bucks. That's not to mention the potential profit (and the asset) owning your own stadium could (and likely would) bring.

 

 

27 minutes ago, CleveFan said:

I think it’s great news.  It’s the worst kept secret in the world that the Haslams want a new stadium - the timetable just got accelerated.  This is their “move”, probably in their best hopes to align with a Super Bowl contender with the career of Deshaun Watson as the lynch pin. 
 

IMO, the area @KJP referenced in his article - between East 13th and East 17th is the perfect choice for the future of the city. 
1) Energize and connect to downtown 

2) supercharge development in that district on the edge of downtown 

3) Open the lakefront and 20 new acres for development, lifestyle and possible new attractions

 

And to those that dismiss the Browns as unnecessary to the future of the city - it’s a selfish perspective, to my thinking.  Economics are what they are in 2023. But football  is The American pastime and I want the new and next generations of Clevelanders to have a hometown team. there were once some great times being a Browns fan and that excitement can return - fans here have been so loyal and deserve a team in a competitive facility. 
.

Granted, The team has been abysmal for years - but  a competitive team might be finally at hand - I hope.  

 

It’s time to  join the 21st century and make this a year round facility that hosts many events - not 10 or 11 games.  
 

Think of what this town could be like in a decade with a modern stadium  with easy access to downtown businesses - and a beautiful lakefront open for developing. 
 

 

Agreed on all points. I particularly liked your comment about connecting downtown- suddenly, the lakefront (plus a potential Burke green space should it close), Cleveland State University, the Gateway District, and the CBD + riverfront are all interconnected. 
 

Also, you’d have to think that this would most likely reopen the RTA’s Waterfront Line and perhaps even expedite a potential expansion to CSU. 

48 minutes ago, CleveFan said:

I think it’s great news.  It’s the worst kept secret in the world that the Haslams want a new stadium - the timetable just got accelerated.  This is their “move”, probably in their best hopes to align with a Super Bowl contender with the career of Deshaun Watson as the lynch pin. 
 

IMO, the area @KJP referenced in his article - between East 13th and East 17th is the perfect choice for the future of the city. 
1) Energize and connect to downtown 

2) supercharge development in that district on the edge of downtown 

3) Open the lakefront and 20 new acres for development, lifestyle and possible new attractions

 

And to those that dismiss the Browns as unnecessary to the future of the city - it’s a selfish perspective, to my thinking.  Economics are what they are in 2023. But football  is The American pastime and I want the new and next generations of Clevelanders to have a hometown team. there were once some great times being a Browns fan and that excitement can return - fans here have been so loyal and deserve a team in a competitive facility. 
.

Granted, The team has been abysmal for years - but  a competitive team might be finally at hand - I hope.  

 

It’s time to  join the 21st century and make this a year round facility that hosts many events - not 10 or 11 games.  
 

Think of what this town could be like in a decade with a modern stadium  with easy access to downtown businesses - and a beautiful lakefront open for developing. 

 

 

On the contrary I consider it selfish to throw public money at an organization that doesn't need it. It's irrelevant that the team is good or bad as the stadium is full every Sunday anyway. What is the incentive to build a new one, except to direct more revenue to the Browns.

If there are events happening throughout the year in a new stadium, it would bring jobs and collateral economic benefits to various downtown businesses. 
 

I didn’t say to throw money at the Haslams but I am excited about what the city could look like both on the east side of downtown and on the lakefront if this domino actually falls - We can argue about the economics when we we know specifics. 
 

Lers have some vision here and think about the possibilities that a new stadium could create.  If I were the city of Cleveland and/or the Haslams, trying to negotiate a future Super Bowl in Cleveland would be on the table. 

The main thing I want is for whatever the price tag is to include a train station in the immediate vicinity of the stadium. I NEVER drive to Browns games, always catching the waterfront line to the stop by the stadium. I prefer to be able to retain that option.

Side note is I was watching this YouTube channel called CityNerd and he was listing the most urban stadiums and it made me realize that Cleveland has relatively “urban” stadiums. Urban meaning there is not a swath of parking lots and convenient transit/rail access. Browns stadium is easily the least “urban” so I hope that the new stadium changes that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A domed stadium will not host enough events throughout the year to justify the cost. Period. It might get a handful of additional events. It might get one Super Bowl and one Final Four. Over its entire life. There is no economic case for tax dollars to be spent on this. It could be fun and it (in theory) could be a source of civic pride (lol Cleveland Frowns). But it’s silly to argue that there’s an economic case to be made - there simply isn’t. 
 

I’m open to putting a tax levy on the ballot to see if the voters agree to waste tax dollars in this. We shouldn’t pretend like the tax dollars exist and could be used for something that would actually drive economic benefit - there isn’t anything in the latter category with enough political support that local politicians would push through. But tax dollars for a football stadium - dome or not - is not something our public officials should be advocating for. The way the arena renovation was pushed through was wrong. 

Economics don't look kindly upon publicly funded stadiums, with or without domes.

 

I'm not sure what events you think we'd get that will change the calculus, but I suggest looking at the event schedule for Indy's stadium. Most of them come to Cleveland now already. Some to First Energy stadium, some to the Fieldhouse. 

I don’t really understand the statements about the Haslams using lakefront development revenue to help fund a stadium. They don’t own the current stadium or the land? 🤔

7 minutes ago, Enginerd said:

I don’t really understand the statements about the Haslams using lakefront development revenue to help fund a stadium. They don’t own the current stadium or the land? 🤔

 

TIFs are already used everywhere in Cleveland to finance construction of the building itself. Only thing left to redirect is sales tax and income tax of residents in this district. 

Building a stadium at E. 13-18th would be a much better spot than eating up so much valuable lakefront land. The big challenge I see, however, is ensuring the area around a new stadium doesn’t become a sea of surface parking lots. 

1 hour ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

A domed stadium will not host enough events throughout the year to justify the cost. Period. It might get a handful of additional events. It might get one Super Bowl and one Final Four. Over its entire life. There is no economic case for tax dollars to be spent on this. It could be fun and it (in theory) could be a source of civic pride (lol Cleveland Frowns). But it’s silly to argue that there’s an economic case to be made - there simply isn’t. 
 

I’m open to putting a tax levy on the ballot to see if the voters agree to waste tax dollars in this. We shouldn’t pretend like the tax dollars exist and could be used for something that would actually drive economic benefit - there isn’t anything in the latter category with enough political support that local politicians would push through. But tax dollars for a football stadium - dome or not - is not something our public officials should be advocating for. The way the arena renovation was pushed through was wrong. 

And it’s highly unlikely the NFL awards Cleveland a Super Bowl regardless of a new stadium or public subsidy. The league very much prefers warm weather cities during the winter among other reasons.

Edited February 28, 20232 yr by 646empire

2 minutes ago, 646empire said:

And it’s highly unlikely the NFL awards Cleveland a Super Bowl regardless of a new stadium or public subsidy. The league very much prefers warm weather cities during the winter among other reasons.

I think Cleveland would at least get one. Pretty much every cold weather city that built a dome (Detroit, Indy, Minneapolis) got a “token” Super Bowl. 
 

If the Browns and the city could get the NFL to commit to a Super Bowl, I think that’d go a long way towards not only making the new stadium happen, but progressing the lakefront development as well. 

Regarding the evolution of today's article...

 

I rewrote significant portions of that article three times today as people got back to me throughout the day with more information. As I got more info, it became clearer as to what the preferred site was. And to me, at this stage of the Browns stadium situation, that was the most important angle of this story -- not the shenanigans between the Browns and Bibb Administration. Although the Browns are trying their damndest to claim otherwise, their feasibility study of FirstEnergy Stadium is simply a document to justify abandoning it. They made their choice to leave FES a long time ago.

 

Some of the most interesting news came to me when I was about to hit the "publish" button. That was the info about the FBI HQ and WKYC's studios. I'd like to look into that more.

I think Cleveland would at least get one. Pretty much every cold weather city that built a dome (Detroit, Indy, Minneapolis) got a “token” Super Bowl. 
 
If the Browns and the city could get the NFL to commit to a Super Bowl, I think that’d go a long way towards not only making the new stadium happen, but progressing the lakefront development as well. 

Nba did the same thing with the renovation to the Q at the time, they guaranteed an all star game if the Reno went through, and they’ve done the same over and over throughout the league which is why we’ve seen the recent allstar games in smaller markets

2 minutes ago, BuckeyeNative said:

I think Cleveland would at least get one. Pretty much every cold weather city that built a dome (Detroit, Indy, Minneapolis) got a “token” Super Bowl. 
 

If the Browns and the city could get the NFL to commit to a Super Bowl, I think that’d go a long way towards not only making the new stadium happen, but progressing the lakefront development as well. 

That was a little bit of a trend at one point when lots of teams where building/needed new stadiums which included the NYC game at MetLife Stadium but I’m not so sure the league is playing that Super Bowl Giveaway game anymore. Also Cleveland tax payers would certainly be paying a pretty penny towards that stadium if a Super Bowl comes into play. I dont think it’s in the cards.  I can see the league doing Chicago tho, which looks like they are going the doomed/retractable roof route for sure and even then I’m not so sure with chicagos horrible winters.

“Starting in 2023, the NFL will open up a bidding process for the NFL Draft Combine, the NFL Draft, and the Super Bowl in which different NFL cities can bid on holding one of these events.

Although the league has made a bidding process, the locations for three of the next four Super Bowl’s have already been set as Super Bowl 56 will be in Los Angeles, 57 will be in Phoenix, 58 does not have a location just yet, and 59 will be in New Orleans.

The growing theme for NFL teams that either build new stadiums or go through major renovations is that they awarded the hosts of a near-future Super Bowl. The last four Super Bowls have been hosted by teams whose stadiums were either built or renovated in the last ten years.”

Looks like we’d have to pay up for a Super Bowl as well, at least we got the draft before this new process

30 minutes ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

Nba did the same thing with the renovation to the Q at the time, they guaranteed an all star game if the Reno went through, as have done the same over and over throughout the league which is why we’ve seen the recent alls tar games in smaller market they’ve all struck the same deal

A Super Bowl is a completely different beast than an All Star game, it’s not even close. The infrastructure from hotels to transportation is enormous. The only market that I can think of that would be similar to Cleveland is Jacksonville and if I’m not mistaken they even had to call in cruise ships for the big game. Indianapolis is a huge convention city with great capacity for its size and Minneapolis is similar. The Detroit game was a true sweetheart deal for a city in the dumps that rallied to get Ford Field done in addition to the league not truly threatening/willing to move the historic Detroit Lions Franchise.

Edited February 28, 20232 yr by 646empire

5 minutes ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

“Starting in 2023, the NFL will open up a bidding process for the NFL Draft Combine, the NFL Draft, and the Super Bowl in which different NFL cities can bid on holding one of these events.

Although the league has made a bidding process, the locations for three of the next four Super Bowl’s have already been set as Super Bowl 56 will be in Los Angeles, 57 will be in Phoenix, 58 does not have a location just yet, and 59 will be in New Orleans.

The growing theme for NFL teams that either build new stadiums or go through major renovations is that they awarded the hosts of a near-future Super Bowl. The last four Super Bowls have been hosted by teams whose stadiums were either built or renovated in the last ten years.”

Looks like we’d have to pay up for a Super Bowl as well, at least we got the draft before this new process

Yeah I’ve read about the new process but I’d have to see it to believe it, it’s going to still be mostly the same 5-7 warm weather glamour cities if I had to guess. I’m mostly Cincinnati/NYC based and would love to see Cincy get one too after the bengals get a projected 600+ million dollar renovation in the next few years but I know it’s still unlikely with the likes of Chicago, Philadelphia, The Kraft family in Boston among others who have said they are going to throw their hats in the ring for a superbowl too. The line is going to be long and many of the early 2000s stadiums are about to come due to be replaced or renovated.

 

Unless Cincinnati, Philadelphia, or Boston are willing to build a state of the art domed stadium, those cities are a hard no to host a Superbowl. The NFL awarded MetLife a Super Bowl not to showcase the stadium, but to stand in solidarity with New York after September 11th. With the exception of that game, the NFL does not award their showcase event to an outdoor stadium in a cold weather location. 

Cold/snowy weather is becoming less of a "problem." Still, I wouldn't focus too much on the Super Bowl. Think about Final Fours, US soccer friendlies, RRHOF inductions, etc. Anything else? 

I'd much rather see a tax levy for the RTA. So sick of the Browns. 

I think people are very wishful if they think we are keeping this team without a public contribution and of course civically the team is very important to the region so there isn't going to be a passive indifference about them leaving. There would be uproar.

 

That's where there needs to be a realistic compromise and to me that's using the stadium as some sort of economic driver despite the obscene amounts of public money they're going to get whatever the outcome. There's research which I could post later from Baltimore and Charlotte which details the economic benefit of NFL stadiums on hotel occupancy and for the hospitality industry. 

 

We are going to spend the money regardless so let's get some sort of spin off and not a disconnected stadium out in the 'burbs surrounded by nothing but asphalt. 

 

I favored the Post Office site as it gave them more of a blank canvas to work from and I am not to a fan of NFL stadiums slap bang in the middle of a Downtown area. If they feel the Post Office site is too detached however then that bodes well for them turning up their nose at a suburban site.

Edited February 28, 20232 yr by snakebite

11 minutes ago, snakebite said:

I think people are very wishful if they think we are keeping this team without a public contribution and of course civically the team is very important to the region so there isn't going to be a passive indifference about them leaving. There would be uproar.

 

That's where there needs to be a realistic compromise and to me that's using the stadium as some sort of economic driver despite the obscene amounts of public money they're going to get whatever the outcome. There's research which I could post later from Baltimore and Charlotte which details the economic benefit of NFL stadiums on hotel occupancy and for the hospitality industry. 

 

We are going to spend the money regardless so let's get some sort of spin off and not a disconnected stadium out in the 'burbs surrounded by nothing but asphalt. 

 

I favored the Post Office site as it gave them more of a blank canvas to work from and I am not to a fan of NFL stadiums slap bang in the middle of a Downtown area. If they feel the Post Office site is too detached however then that bodes well for them turning up their nose at a suburban site.

 

Uproar is an understatement.   It would be at least as profound as 1995-1996.   The team is integral to the identity of the city and the region.

2 hours ago, ASP1984 said:

I'd much rather see a tax levy for the RTA. So sick of the Browns. 

 

It would fail miserably if seen as the cause of the Browns leaving.

If a new stadium is built along Lakeside- how about a Waterfront Line connection?  With the potential spin-off I think it could be justified.

 

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again- Lakeside is THE most underutilized street downtown. Moving the stadium east would be great on so many levels.

if they built a stadium at e13, they could build a new amtrak/rta station at e12 with a walkway over the tracks. serve as access from the muni lot, too

@KJPCongrats on your reporting! Your blog was just mentioned on 92.3 in their sports updates which run often on the station.

 

I LOVE the Lakeside site. Would be a great shot in the arm to that area and would spur more development. Right next to the Muni Lot, already have a couple spots right there: Noble Beast, the new Winking Lizard in the AECOM building, Masthead, whatever that new place is going in One Cleveland Center. And it still stays downtown.

 

But it's a little worrisome that Bibb and WKYC already rejected Halsams offers to buy land there. Can anyone figure out why?

10 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

A domed stadium will not host enough events throughout the year to justify the cost. Period. It might get a handful of additional events. It might get one Super Bowl and one Final Four. Over its entire life. There is no economic case for tax dollars to be spent on this. It could be fun and it (in theory) could be a source of civic pride (lol Cleveland Frowns). But it’s silly to argue that there’s an economic case to be made - there simply isn’t. 
 

I’m open to putting a tax levy on the ballot to see if the voters agree to waste tax dollars in this. We shouldn’t pretend like the tax dollars exist and could be used for something that would actually drive economic benefit - there isn’t anything in the latter category with enough political support that local politicians would push through. But tax dollars for a football stadium - dome or not - is not something our public officials should be advocating for. The way the arena renovation was pushed through was wrong. 

I may still have my " Build the Dome" button from the last (V. Campanella) tax levy attempt. 😉

Football stadiums are not economic development tools. They cost money, and return no measurable dollars and cents benefit. The only reason to build them are because you would be sad if you didn’t have a football team. The only person who benefits from a new stadium, in terms of dollars, is Jimmy Haslam. Full stop
 

https://www.investigativepost.org/2021/12/13/little-economic-benefit-from-new-stadium/

https://econreview.berkeley.edu/the-economics-of-sports-stadiums-does-public-financing-of-sports-stadiums-create-local-economic-growth-or-just-help-billionaires-improve-their-profit-margin/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2022/03/31/nfl-stadiums-taxpayer-funded-buffalo-bills/7217852001/

 

 

For some context, the last two stadiums built were SoFi in LA and Allegiant in Las Vegas. SoFi was entirely privately funded. Allegiant was about 66% publicly funded and about 33% funded by a Clark County (NV) bond issue that was financed by a new hotel tax. 

15 minutes ago, bumsquare said:

Football stadiums are not economic development tools. They cost money, and return no measurable dollars and cents benefit. The only reason to build them are because you would be sad if you didn’t have a football team. The only person who benefits from a new stadium, in terms of dollars, is Jimmy Haslam. Full stop
 

https://www.investigativepost.org/2021/12/13/little-economic-benefit-from-new-stadium/

https://econreview.berkeley.edu/the-economics-of-sports-stadiums-does-public-financing-of-sports-stadiums-create-local-economic-growth-or-just-help-billionaires-improve-their-profit-margin/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2022/03/31/nfl-stadiums-taxpayer-funded-buffalo-bills/7217852001/

I mean it isn’t zero economic benefit. Obviously there is economic activity driven by the stadium and there’s potential for some development, when done correctly. It just isn’t remotely close to covering the public costs of any recent stadium deals. Even the stadiums that were predominantly privately funded took public land that would have been better used for housing (because those only happened in crazy high cost of living area).
 

For example, if Haslem was paying all construction costs, and supportive of transit projects in the area, I’d be supportive of giving land bank properties and maybe even city owned properties to the project - plenty of underinvested properties in the area. My negative reaction to Ken’s news is because every indication is that Haslem would want something similar to the completely idiotic stadium deals in Buffalo and Atlanta. And there are people trying to justify those giveaways by pretending there’s enough economic value to justify them. I completely agree w bum that there is not. 

 

The only valid justification is civic pride and ‘fun’ (both seem like a stretch for this team, but let’s pretend we had a competently run NFL org). Is that really worth the $1B+ in public funds Haslem is likely asking for? To be blunt, St Louis is much better off w the hundreds of millions they got from Kroenke in the lawsuit than they would be with still having the Rams.

1 hour ago, Oldmanladyluck said:

@KJPCongrats on your reporting! Your blog was just mentioned on 92.3 in their sports updates which run often on the station.

Also on WTAM.

1 hour ago, Oldmanladyluck said:

@KJPCongrats on your reporting! Your blog was just mentioned on 92.3 in their sports updates which run often on the station.

 

Also on WTAM on my drive in to work.....beat me to it.

Edited February 28, 20232 yr by E Rocc

44 minutes ago, bumsquare said:

Football stadiums are not economic development tools. They cost money, and return no measurable dollars and cents benefit. The only reason to build them are because you would be sad if you didn’t have a football team. The only person who benefits from a new stadium, in terms of dollars, is Jimmy Haslam. Full stop
 

https://www.investigativepost.org/2021/12/13/little-economic-benefit-from-new-stadium/

https://econreview.berkeley.edu/the-economics-of-sports-stadiums-does-public-financing-of-sports-stadiums-create-local-economic-growth-or-just-help-billionaires-improve-their-profit-margin/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2022/03/31/nfl-stadiums-taxpayer-funded-buffalo-bills/7217852001/

 

 

 

We have never been the kind of forum that uses phrases like "full stop", that sounds like Reddit, old school twitter, or even 4chan.

 

That said, there is a definite correlation, nationally and even globally, between the number of major league sports teams a city has and its perceived "tier".

Quite frankly I am more interested in how all of this relates to the redevelopment of the lakefront around the current stadium and whether all this BS is going to further  delay its development which seems to happen time and time again for one reason or another.

Yeah the hard truth is all of the new stadiums built mostly with public money are for the benefit of the multibillionaire owners. It's disgusting.  Sure the local city gets something out of it with some ancillary development that wouldn't have occurred otherwise but nothing close to the cost to taxpayers. Billionaire's getting billions handed to them by those least able to afford it. That's a hard pill to swallow if you have sny sense of equanimity and fairness. Capitalism at its worst. 

 

Having said all of that we have two choices. We can go the St. Louis route and forgo the NFL and all that comes with it or we can pay up. That's it. Think of it like a casino. We know going in we're most likely coming out poorer but at least we're buying a little entertainment. That's modern sports on a grand scale. If we want a piece of the action it's going to cost us big time. It's a losers game all for the benefit of billionaires.

 

That being said...how soon can l vote yes and through my money at this thing. I'm human and nothing if not irrational. Stupid too but hey...l want to be part of the action so l'm on board. Build it and l will come (well not really. I'll watch it on tv but you get my drift).

6 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

We have never been the kind of forum that uses phrases like "full stop", that sounds like Reddit, old school twitter, or even 4chan.

 

That said, there is a definite correlation, nationally and even globally, between the number of major league sports teams a city has and its perceived "tier".

Omg I wouldn’t want to drop down to a different tier! If the rest of the world finds out that we dropped a tier they may stop buying our paints and fabricated metals! I hope we don’t crumble completely like Seattle and San Diego when they lost their franchises!

A lot of confusion and misdirection. Why did the Haslem’s even bother with all the  fancy lakefront renders, involving FES? The reason of; they’re going to spend a billion dollars on residential and commercial development in order to have income to finance the stadium (reno or new) makes zero sense. Not to mention, the Haslem’s have no track record of developing anything other than freeway truck stops.

 

If they spend a billion dollars on the stadium, they’ll have plenty of revenue. Naming rights, PSL’s, luxury suite sales, ad revs, etc. 

 

I’m glad Bibb is playing hard ball with these sleaze bags. 

 

Can we force a sale? I heard Bezos wants an NFL team.

Edited February 28, 20232 yr by marty15

I like the Lakeside bluff location for a stadium as well but I would think the land acquisitions costs would be so high that it would make such a location financially iffy.  Just a couple small property owners with huge $$ in their eyes could scuttle the whole thing.

56 minutes ago, bumsquare said:

Football stadiums are not economic development tools. They cost money, and return no measurable dollars and cents benefit. The only reason to build them are because you would be sad if you didn’t have a football team. The only person who benefits from a new stadium, in terms of dollars, is Jimmy Haslam. Full stop
 

https://www.investigativepost.org/2021/12/13/little-economic-benefit-from-new-stadium/

https://econreview.berkeley.edu/the-economics-of-sports-stadiums-does-public-financing-of-sports-stadiums-create-local-economic-growth-or-just-help-billionaires-improve-their-profit-margin/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2022/03/31/nfl-stadiums-taxpayer-funded-buffalo-bills/7217852001/

 

 

I generally agree with your point that modern football stadiums cost a lot more than the revenue they generate, and that they subsidize the costs of a private business.  I do wonder, however, if the value of the lakefront land that would be open for development mitigates some of that financial loss. 

 

Here we have a unique situation where the city has limited lakefront land currently used for public access or development.  If the stadium took the place of the low-density buildings and parking lots on the near-east side, while valuable land on the current site is developed, there might actually a net-positive effect. 

 

Now, net-positive may not mean in a strictly financial sense.  A billion dollar stadium, plus hundreds of millions in land bridge costs would be a lot of investment to recoup.  But some of that cost would be recovered by building a mixed use neighborhood on the current stadium site.  And it would be net-positive in a more touchy-feely sense.  We'd have a more lively lakefront and the respective locations would be better used to their maximum possibilities; just better allocation of land use overall.  The existing lakefront assets would get more foot traffic and be better connected to downtown.

 

8 hours ago, Cleveland Rising said:

Unless Cincinnati, Philadelphia, or Boston are willing to build a state of the art domed stadium, those cities are a hard no to host a Superbowl. The NFL awarded MetLife a Super Bowl not to showcase the stadium, but to stand in solidarity with New York after September 11th. With the exception of that game, the NFL does not award their showcase event to an outdoor stadium in a cold weather location. 

You must not be familiar with how politics in the NFL works. I’m not saying those cities will get a game I’m saying in general the league doesn’t like cold weather host cities period. Also NYC getting a superbowl was not about 9/11 lol, the game took place in 2014 and was awarded to MetLife Stadium when it was new. Also it’s New York City or course the league would put a game in the Big Apple dome or no dome haha.

 

It’s not just about enclosing the game itself in a domed/retractable roof, the SuperBowl is a almost multi week experience and the NFL wants warmer weather for those who aren’t going to the game itself and it’s easier for logistical reasons. As I said the line for the game is very long with the next few booked along with San Fran, Dallas, Indianapolis, Nashville (new stadium), ATL, Miami (always in rotation), Los Angeles again, even London is rumored to be on the board which would push availability way into the 2030s. 

Even so if I was Cleveland I would still opt for a enclosed stadium but not domed my preference is for a retractable roof. There really is something great about having outdoor games in the crisp days of September-October and even November. Buffalo has opted for an open air stadium for these reasons along with the fact retractable roofs cost a fortune and they didn’t want a total dome.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, GREGinPARMA said:

I LOVE the Lakeside site. Would be a great shot in the arm to that area and would spur more development. Right next to the Muni Lot, already have a couple spots right there: Noble Beast, the new Winking Lizard in the AECOM building, Masthead, whatever that new place is going in One Cleveland Center. And it still stays downtown.

 

But it's a little worrisome that Bibb and WKYC already rejected Halsams offers to buy land there. Can anyone figure out why?

 

Bibb rejected it because he thought it was premature. He wanted to get the temperature of the city (aka the electorate) first before casting away FES and before committing to a specific new site.

 

Not sure why WKYC turned down the Haslams other than they really love that building. My sister worked for WKYC before, during and after that building was built in 2000. I got a tour of it and it really is a well thought-out building with terrific technology. The amount of wiring in the building is breathtaking. All of the floor panels are easily removable so you can access the wiring in case of a malfunction. During my tour, they lifted up one of the panels and the extent of wiring in the floors was pretty incredible. To replace that building would be a costly and monumental task. Unless they get a lot more money for their property and relocation, or enough people who were still around in 2000 retire and WKYC loses the institutional memory of the huge effort it takes to build a new, major TV station, that station may not be going anywhere.

4 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

Bibb rejected it because he thought it was premature. He wanted to get the temperature of the city (aka the electorate) first before casting away FES and before committing to a specific new site.

Transparency and and consensus is refreshing and important.  So is leadership.  I hope he is not timid when we finally reach a point that decisions have to be made because  it will be a violative issue as one can tell from all the opinions already expressed on the forum.  

This isn't the Lakefront, but has anyone considered the Wolstein Center site (Prospect south the I-90, E. 18th to E.22nd.) for a new stadium?  I would think that site might make a lot of parties happy is the site of the Wolstein Center.  Prospect south the I-90, E. 18th to E.22nd.  Here's a few reasons why

 

1. Majority of that land is owned by CSU and ODOT; this could make land acquisition a little easier

2. CSU wants to replace Wolstein anyway with a smaller facility.  Maybe that gets worked in as part of the deal

3. Haslams would be happy because it is just outside PHS, meaning there's already bars and restaurants there with room for more development

4. Facility could include a platform over the highway.  This is more feasible/less complicated than the land bridge, but still helps stitch the city back together

5. Mayor Bibb should be happy; he can tout this a boon for the Central neighborhood.  I think its a compromise between downtown and neighborhood development

6.  Great access via highways and public transit, centrally located in the City, brings more activity to PHS, CSU, Tri-C

^ Interesting idea.  I assume it would require closing Carnegie between E 18th and E 22nd.

^Maybe, or just rerouting.  Either way it's easier to do that than re-route the Shoreway as has been discussed.

12 minutes ago, Dino said:

This isn't the Lakefront, but has anyone considered the Wolstein Center site (Prospect south the I-90, E. 18th to E.22nd.) for a new stadium?  I would think that site might make a lot of parties happy is the site of the Wolstein Center.  Prospect south the I-90, E. 18th to E.22nd.  Here's a few reasons why

 

1. Majority of that land is owned by CSU and ODOT; this could make land acquisition a little easier

2. CSU wants to replace Wolstein anyway with a smaller facility.  Maybe that gets worked in as part of the deal

3. Haslams would be happy because it is just outside PHS, meaning there's already bars and restaurants there with room for more development

4. Facility could include a platform over the highway.  This is more feasible/less complicated than the land bridge, but still helps stitch the city back together

5. Mayor Bibb should be happy; he can tout this a boon for the Central neighborhood.  I think its a compromise between downtown and neighborhood development

6.  Great access via highways and public transit, centrally located in the City, brings more activity to PHS, CSU, Tri-C

I really like this idea Dino.

I don't think a stadium belongs right downtown - Lakeside or otherwise. Just me thinking on my own w/o knowledge but it sure seems that the area around Lakeside and St. Clair has a ton of potential that doesn't involve tearing down a bunch of buildings for parking lots. Not sure what life a stadium would add for all the hype that everyone's speaking about...I mean the stadium's sat on a gold mine of a site for 20 years and the only development has been tearing down of a warehouse for the draft. Also (to continue w/the negative tone) a superbowl is NOT  worth it to a host city - the amount of money that host cities spend on placating the NFL is atrocious.

 

Totally against UO standards, but I'd be fine with them building in like Summit/Lorain/Ashtabula County - let their taxpayers take up the burden for once.

Edited February 28, 20232 yr by GISguy