7 minutes ago, GISguy said:

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.

Hell yeah. I would also be ok with pushing the Haslams to Holmes, Knox, Licking, or Franklin counties

37 minutes ago, Dino said:

(Prospect south the I-90, E. 18th to E.22nd.

Just for fun, I was curious how the stadium would fit on that site.  It fits a lot easier than I thought.

I tend to agree with @GISguy.  Such a large venue that only holds a limited number of events per year doesn't need to be right downtown. 

 

Many of us are lamenting the loss of a big chunk of the Warehouse District to make way for the justice center and parking lots. Will that also be the case if a big chunk of the eastern section of downtown is demolished to make way for a stadium and parking lots?

 

My preferred location would be south of downtown at or near the post office location.  It is close to highways and an RTA station. Let's be honest, that area is never going to attract upscale commercial, residential or recreational development.

 

Moving out of Cuyahoga County seems unlikely.  They would need to get those residents to vote for a sin tax or some other tax which would most likely fail.  Whereas in Cuyahoga County they can just keep extending the sin tax indefinitely.

 

Edited March 1, 20232 yr by LibertyBlvd

The stadium is important to me, but lakeside development is even more and something that has frustrated me for years and years.  All the starts and stops and grand plans that never come to be.  I guess my biggest concern with moving the Stadium far from the lakefront is that the Haslams will obviously completely lose interest in the redevelopment and they are currently the private entity driving that bus right now.  Bottom line, we have to start from scratch again and I don't know if I can handle that.

1 hour 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.

 

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.

If we want to see a true "mixed use" facility, no better way than having the local NBC affiliate attached ot the stadium, along with other offices, retail, apartments and public spaces.   

 

Maybe downtown Cleveland could finally get some condos with Browns fans buying at the stadium.    They could put windows onto the field like the hotel at the Rogers Center in Toronto.   Tailgater heaven!  

Your story has been picked up by Yahoo Sports 😀

 

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/report-browns-want-stadium-roof-005424132.html

 

According to Ken Prendergast of NEOtrans, the Haslams have concluded that FirstEnergy Stadium is beyond renovation and that it was, “quickly and poorly built and may not be affordably retrofitted with upgrades like wider concourses or a roof, be it retractable or fixed.”

Prendergast reported over the summer that the Haslams are eyeing a stadium with a roof as, “the city-owned stadium is used only 10-12 times per year; a retractable or fixed roof would allow it to be used more often.”

I’d like to see the stadium on the East side of downtown even though the number of events per year are limited -but on Big game days it really brings national attention to a city in a very commercial way.  

 

But this recent article centered on a similar conversation going on in Nashville. definitely supports those that say the economic impact of a domed stadium is pretty  limited. 
 

https://www.thecentersquare.com/tennessee/estimates-of-non-nfl-events-such-as-concerts-at-proposed-tennessee-titans-stadium-likely-inflated/article_1377de5c-70e9-11ed-95a9-8fbeb8260197.amp.html
 

 

21 minutes ago, Dino said:

Just for fun, I was curious how the stadium would fit on that site.  It fits a lot easier than I thought.

I love this actually. A stadium styled similar to Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis would be an awesome fit on Prospect. Bookended by the Salvation Army and YMCA buildings. 

^This sort of got off of the lakefront development topic, but if someone knows how to move it to where it needs to be go ahead.  I want stay on the good side of the administrators!

5 minutes ago, CleveFan said:

I’d like to see the stadium on the East side of downtown even though the number of events per year are limited -but on Big game days it really brings national attention to a city in a very commercial way.  

 

But this recent article centered on a similar conversation going on in Nashville. definitely supports those that say the economic impact of a domed stadium is pretty  limited. 
 

https://www.thecentersquare.com/tennessee/estimates-of-non-nfl-events-such-as-concerts-at-proposed-tennessee-titans-stadium-likely-inflated/article_1377de5c-70e9-11ed-95a9-8fbeb8260197.amp.html
 

 

The only problem with these other sites is if there is going to be public money (and let's face it, there will be "some" public money), then the covered stadium should at least be attached to the convention center, which makes. the lakefront site ideal.   Full disclosure--you'll see me arguing for years on these forums that a domed stadium doesn't  really bring much to the convention table.  But at least the option would be present for the once every 10 years event that could utilize the space. 

 

Plus, if we built it there smartly and included mixed use development, lakefront public space, a new Amtrak station, etc, it's a net win for the region. 

Perhaps with a state of the art dome we could host the Big 10 football and basketball championships. That would be a great economic boost to NE Ohio.

Given we're talking about a variety of stadium locations which may or may not be on the lakefront (or even downtown!) can we get a "New Browns Stadium" thread?

I think Dino read my mind.  I love the idea of having stadium anchor this area as a sports district.  I think that any area with a view of the lake would have residential as the highest and best use.

 

2 hours ago, Dino said:

Just for fun, I was curious how the stadium would fit on that site.  It fits a lot easier than I thought.

 

And they already got all those parking lots around it ready to be filled by tailgaters 😆

The Erie Street Cemetery would be an appropriate place to prepare for a Browns game

Nick Wilson on 92.3 The Fan gonna be talking stadium issue.

 

*** He just gave a great shout out to "Pen Kendergrast" hahahaha 

1 minute ago, surfohio said:

Nick Wilson on 92.3 The Fan gonna be talking stadium issue.

 

*** He just gave a great shout out to "Pen Kendergrast" hahahaha 

 

I should make that my new pen name! 

4 hours ago, cadmen said:

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).

I get what you're saying in "capitalism at its worst", but what you're talking about is cronyism, not capitalism. I think that's an enormously important distinction. Other than that, I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment. 

6 hours ago, urb-a-saurus said:

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

 

My friends and I used to hang out at this warehouse space over in Collinwood. There was A LOT of old "Dome for Cleveland" billboards collecting dust there. Connecting some dots it made me wonder if a certain nefarious ethnic underworld organization may have been behind that campaign haha. 

5 hours ago, marty15 said:

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.

 

Thank you. It is indeed bizarro world we're living in. When you realize that, it then makes perfect sense why you should hand over what should be our most valuable asset - the Lakefront - to the genius behind the Cleveland Browns. 

55 minutes ago, surfohio said:

 

My friends and I used to hang out at this warehouse space over in Collinwood. There was A LOT of old "Dome for Cleveland" billboards collecting dust there. Connecting some dots it made me wonder if a certain nefarious ethnic underworld organization may have been behind that campaign haha. 

 

"Hexatron", IIRC.    Most of us pushing for the restoration of the team identity in the late '90s were anti-dome.   For one thing, non-dome teams playing in the playoffs at home often have an advantage.

What would happen to the old stadium?? Would it be demolished or just sit vacant? What an exponential amount of waste. 

Fix the old stadium and keep it moving. Why do the Browns need a new gazillion dollar stadium to lose in every week?

Edited February 28, 20232 yr by mermaidlindsay

It would be demolished and probably end up in Lake Erie, next to Municipal Stadium.

Scrapping a 25 year old stadium seems like a shame to me, but that seems to be the way this is going; a lot people say the stadium was built poorly.  Plus I think having a major stakeholder like the Browns on the lake is the only way to leverage infrastructure improvements.  So if the Browns leave the lakefront, I would think new development north of the Shoreway is a long ways off.  That said, putting the lakefront on hold for a while wouldn't be the worst news in my opinion.  It allows focus to remain on areas of downtown that are already in progress.  Areas like Flats East Bank, Bedrock Riverfront, SHW spin off, filling in parking lots downtown already have a lot of momentum and a lot of investment.  I'd rather see those visions realized before focus goes to the lakefront.  It's another reason I kind of like the Wolstein site for a new stadium.  It would help fill in the urban core.

i don't think anyone is surprized the cbs is not working out for upgrades.

 

the new site noted is rather odd, but if they think they can aquire it and build a freakin nfl stadium there that's great. 

 

i would think somewhere in midtown would work out more easily.

 

i always liked the idea of a return of league park and midtown would kind of be it.

 

anyway, i am glad they want to be as smack dab in the city as they can be, that is wise.

 

now whether the halsams have big enough money or the taxpayers get soaked is another issue, especially after just buying the bucks.

LOL, any public subsidy should be like an incenive contract teams do with players:

  $x  per 2023 victory plus $y for each 2023 playoff win.  Make 'em earn it.  That would be hilarious.

There was a survey done in Jacksonville recently and it asked residents whether they would support or oppose the city using up to $750 million of public funds to split the cost of stadium renovations with the Jaguars, 61% of those polled said they oppose the expenditure, either strongly or somewhat.

 

It also suggested that 84% said it was very or somewhat important for the city to have an NFL franchise.

 

I think that gives a great snapshot of how people view stadiums and also the emotional tug that gets used in cutting a deal.

 

There is no way any civic leader or politician in Cleveland or NEO regardless of affiliation is running a campaign off the back of telling the Browns, the Haslams and the NFL to leave if they don't pay for it themselves.

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

Fantastic proposal. I think I would favor this if it meant it spurned development in that low-rise section of Carnegie. It feels so underwhelming.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

A quick google search revealed that only 4 NFL stadiums are team owned and operated.  Clearly owning your own stadium in the NFL is not a "thing"- and cities have pretty much recognized this. I doubt the Haslams, after doing the math, are much interested in owning a stadium in Cleveland Ohio unless it  some how significantly increases the value of the franchisee.  Given this fact they probably see little reason to completely pay for a building that they will not own.  Still, the reality is that they will have to contribute something to its construction.  That is what negotiations are all about.

As long as the current stadium isn't falling on anyone's heads, they should keep playing there. And if Jimmy and Dee want a new stadium, then they need to work with the NFL so that the public gets equity or some kind of advanced profit sharing. None of this $6 mill a year in rent and whatever the tailgating idiots supposedly spend downtown.

 

Let them move if Jimmy and Dee make the threat. Frankly, the Browns never really came back. And now with the serial sexual predator and his enablers on the field for 5 years, I certainly have no love for them anymore.

31 minutes ago, snakebite said:

There was a survey done in Jacksonville recently and it asked residents whether they would support or oppose the city using up to $750 million of public funds to split the cost of stadium renovations with the Jaguars, 61% of those polled said they oppose the expenditure, either strongly or somewhat.

 

It also suggested that 84% said it was very or somewhat important for the city to have an NFL franchise.

 

I think that gives a great snapshot of how people view stadiums and also the emotional tug that gets used in cutting a deal.

 

There is no way any civic leader or politician in Cleveland or NEO regardless of affiliation is running a campaign off the back of telling the Browns, the Haslams and the NFL to leave if they don't pay for it themselves.

Most people that live in Florida aren’t from there and have favorite teams elsewhere. Don’t know if that’s an accurate gauge.
 

MLB teams there have struggled to attract any kind of fan base for the same reasons. 

Hi  @646empire, thank you for your thought provoking post. I also would love to see a retractable dome for Cleveland, but as you said they have a hefty price tag. Actually the NFL and NYC did determine that a Superbowl should be played in the city as early as 2 or 3 years after 9/11 in order to showcase the city’s recovery efforts. I believe a stadium on the west side of the city had been proposed , but plans fell through. The awarding of a Superbowl didn’t happen until 2010 I think. It was finally played in 2014 at the new MetLife stadium. I would think that this was a “one-off” however. As you correctly stated the game has become a multi week event and the NFL has determined it should be hosted in a warm weather location. 

8 hours ago, mermaidlindsay said:

What would happen to the old stadium?? Would it be demolished or just sit vacant? What an exponential amount of waste. 

Fix the old stadium and keep it moving. Why do the Browns need a new gazillion dollar stadium to lose in every week?

Because other teams have state of the art stadiums. If a potential superstar player has a choice between accepting an offer from a team with a modern fully equipped stadium or one from a team with an older obsolete one, which do you think they would choose?  Teams that want to win want to attract the best players.

6 hours ago, Growth Mindset said:

Because other teams have state of the art stadiums. If a potential superstar player has a choice between accepting an offer from a team with a modern fully equipped stadium or one from a team with an older obsolete one, which do you think they would choose?  Teams that want to win want to attract the best players.

The Lions have a beautiful dome and they have not had any modern success either. 

I don't understand the pretty consistent refrain here that if the stadium is moved off the lakefront then developing that area is, at least, significantly delayed. The stadiums presence hasn't spurred any development, and sure the absence of the stadium wont do anything to incentivize development either, but the rerouting of the Shoreway and construction of the land-bridge are city lead have backers beyond the Haslam's and the Browns. Those two developments are what will get the lake front developed. Removing the stadium just gives a developer a totally blank slate to work with and ~20 extra acres to get a return on their investment. 

 

As far as new locations for a stadium; I'm not a big fan of Lakeside Ave. There are a lot of cool old warehouses that should be redeveloped for reuse, I don't see a stadium supporting that sort of organic growth and worry that a lot would be torn down to build up some new hotels. 

 

I prefer the old post office location. And if Jimmy is worried about how disconnected it is from the city I know one obstacle that could be removed to improve connectivity... (kidding, kind of, don't want to derail this thread).

8 hours ago, Cleveland Rising said:

Hi  @646empire, thank you for your thought provoking post. I also would love to see a retractable dome for Cleveland, but as you said they have a hefty price tag. Actually the NFL and NYC did determine that a Superbowl should be played in the city as early as 2 or 3 years after 9/11 in order to showcase the city’s recovery efforts. I believe a stadium on the west side of the city had been proposed , but plans fell through. The awarding of a Superbowl didn’t happen until 2010 I think. It was finally played in 2014 at the new MetLife stadium. I would think that this was a “one-off” however. As you correctly stated the game has become a multi week event and the NFL has determined it should be hosted in a warm weather location. 

It’s more complicated than that, NYC getting a Super Bowl was not about 9/11 as I said to the other poster. It originated as a tool for the city and league to push for the NY Jets westside stadium to be built (the same ploy played in other cities which may be coming soon to Cleveland haha) but it failed when the State rejected the funding for the stadium. What’s interesting is the league awarded the 2010 game but pulled it when the stadium plan collapsed. But wait there’s more… underneath that the city’s real focus was getting the 2012 Olympics and the westside stadium was central to the city’s bid package. There are a million layers to everything in NYC trust me. The city also wanted to get the game to prove to everyone (especially the Olympic committee) that the city was “Back”. But the idea that game was given to NYC to “stand in solidarity” is not really the case it was about an NFL franchise getting a new stadium and public money and the city’s real prize the 2012 Olympics. Anyway let’s get back to the subject matter. 
 

Side note the “westside” ny stadium is one of my all time design favs would love for a city to do something similar *winks at Cleveland.

Edited March 1, 20232 yr by 646empire

2 hours ago, Luke_S said:

I don't understand the pretty consistent refrain here that if the stadium is moved off the lakefront then developing that area is, at least, significantly delayed. The stadiums presence hasn't spurred any development, and sure the absence of the stadium wont do anything to incentivize development either, but the rerouting of the Shoreway and construction of the land-bridge are city lead have backers beyond the Haslam's and the Browns. Those two developments are what will get the lake front developed. Removing the stadium just gives a developer a totally blank slate to work with and ~20 extra acres to get a return on their investment. 

 

As far as new locations for a stadium; I'm not a big fan of Lakeside Ave. There are a lot of cool old warehouses that should be redeveloped for reuse, I don't see a stadium supporting that sort of organic growth and worry that a lot would be torn down to build up some new hotels. 

 

I prefer the old post office location. And if Jimmy is worried about how disconnected it is from the city I know one obstacle that could be removed to improve connectivity... (kidding, kind of, don't want to derail this thread).

I agree with your first paragraph.  Getting the stadium off the lakefront increases the likelihood of development.  Right now the options for building involve squeezing into little spaces around the stadium.

 

As to the issue of cool old warehouses, I hope we can save the ones that remain in the city, but the E. 13th-18th area proposed for the stadium doesn't have many of them.  Its mostly single-story buildings and surface parking lots.  I think this land is so lightly used that a stadium would be a big improvement.  The post office area is more of a blank slate but really isolated.

^ i still think they should build that and get rid of msg -- but the dolans will never go for that, those dam stubbon clevelanders lol!

 

that style stadium would look great on the lakefront site though -- or i think better yet the wolstein site.

 

 

7 minutes ago, ryanfrazier said:

As to the issue of cool old warehouses, I hope we can save the ones that remain in the city, but the E. 13th-18th area proposed for the stadium doesn't have many of them.  Its mostly single-story buildings and surface parking lots.  I think this land is so lightly used that a stadium would be a big improvement.  The post office area is more of a blank slate but really isolated.

 

That's fair, my assumption (maybe a big assumption) was that the surrounding area would see an influx of development that would clear out those other buildings in the process. 

1 hour ago, Luke_S said:

but the rerouting of the Shoreway and construction of the land-bridge are city lead have backers beyond the Haslam's and the Browns. Those two developments are what will get the lake front developed.

I agree that those two projects are key to developing the lakefront, but here's why I don't think they will happen for a long time without the stadium (or another extremely compelling stakeholder to invest in new development).

 

1. These projects will cost in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

2. If a developer pays for it, they need to see a return on investment.  Being on the lake is nice, but that alone isn't going to raise rents enough to offset the investment.  The amount of development would have to be massive to bear those costs and still see a return.  Hudson Yards is a good example of the scale.

3. If a government is going to spend that kind of money, they need a relative guarantee of new development (as in approved plans and financing commitments) and usually a compelling civic benefit.  I think the recent lakefront plan with the Browns, a potential new transportation hub, and the promise of parks, and residential towers, was starting to become a compelling case.  But I don't see anyone investing this much on speculation of new development.

4. Even with the Browns stadium, a master plan, and a seasoned developer on board recently, nothing came of it.  I think that demonstrates how complicated and difficult doing all of this is.  It takes a ton of money and a ton of cooperation with many stakeholders.

5.  There's too many other "lower hanging fruit" projects downtown.  If I'm the City or County, or if I'm a developer, I'd be focused on developing sites that don't require such a heavy lift.  SHW spin off in the WH District, Flats East Bank, Nucleus site, Centenial, Landmark backfill, are examples.  Not to mention all the opportunities in the neighborhoods.  Those aren't slam dunks either, even without necessitating massive infrastructure packages.

^ transit hub and land bridge does tip the scales for staying on the lakefront site. hmm.

I think @Dinopretty much nailed it.

Any chance Cleveland could get some “Build Back America” money from Joe to transform the shore way into an Avenue? 
(or whatever version of a redo they agree on - land bridge, etc) 

@Dino, thanks for the detailed breakdown. I guess I just don't quite agree that the momentum was driven primarily by Haslam and the Browns. I know his plan seemed to reignited the discussions of redevelopment here, but at the time that the lakefront studies on the Shoreway, land-bridge, and Burke were announced there seemed to be broader support from the business community. And as @CleveFan points out, there should be infrastructure money available for at least some parts of these projects. If the multimodal Amtrak station is part of the land-bridge we should be able to leverage financing for that. There are also funds available for the removal of urban highways which could probably be taken advantage of for the Shoreway realignment. 

 

You're probably right that the city would be more willing to take on these infrastructure improvements if a developer was ready to begin development as soon as those improvements were done. But I think the city can be relatively secure in thinking that with improved access this will be pretty quickly developed. And I'm not sure why Haslam would walk away from it just because the stadium isn't there, he stands to make money either way. 

6 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

the momentum was driven primarily by Haslam

I don't think the Haslams or Browns alone were driving this.  But I do think developments like these require interest and commitments from several groups to get off the ground- entities rarely embark on plans like this without buy in from others.  With a developer no longer committed, the Browns signalling interest in non-lakefront sites really undercuts the whole thing in my opinion.

 

15 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

But I think the city can be relatively secure in thinking that with improved access this will be pretty quickly developed

Some of the most valuable, high profile, and accessible sites downtown have been vacant for decades (I'm looking at you Jacobs lot!) and are only now starting to get interest from developers.  I don't think improving access to the lakefront guarantees anything gets built at all.  

8 minutes ago, Dino said:

I don't think the Haslams or Browns alone were driving this.  But I do think developments like these require interest and commitments from several groups to get off the ground- entities rarely embark on plans like this without buy in from others.  With a developer no longer committed, the Browns signalling interest in non-lakefront sites really undercuts the whole thing in my opinion.

 

Some of the most valuable, high profile, and accessible sites downtown have been vacant for decades (I'm looking at you Jacobs lot!) and are only now starting to get interest from developers.  I don't think improving access to the lakefront guarantees anything gets built at all.  

I'm less worried about access allowing for new development opposed to allowing for parkland that will definitely be used to some extent. 

Why is the group thought steer towards we can only have one developer for that whole area? Once the stadium is gone, how about the city lay out a street grid and install the corresponding infrastructure. Once that’s done, sell parcel at a time to whichever developer that has a project they want to deliver that fits the master plan. You know, like an actual city. 

 

Why the constant make or break with one chosen developer? 

9 minutes ago, marty15 said:

Why is the group thought steer towards we can only have one developer for that whole area? Once the stadium is gone, how about the city lay out a street grid and install the corresponding infrastructure. Once that’s done, sell parcel at a time to whichever developer that has a project they want to deliver that fits the master plan. You know, like an actual city. 

 

Why the constant make or break with one chosen developer? 

 

Totally agree!  One of my big problems with the way development happens in this town is that it we're always pushing these massive, multiblock, swing-for-the-fences, all-or-nothing projects.  More base hits- like the City Club Apartments or the Beacon, not to mention the really small projects that we never seem to see outside of the odd adaptive reuse.

 

18 minutes ago, marty15 said:

how about the city lay out a street grid and install the corresponding infrastructure.

What you are suggesting is exactly what growing cities do.  It's what Cleveland did in the early 1900's.  They could do it then, because the population was growing rapidly, and as soon as those lots were created, they would be filled up.  That's not the case in Cleveland today.  The population in the City is still shrinking, and regionally has been pretty stagnant.  Cleveland just doesn't have the type of growth that justifies that amount of public investment.  That's why I think you need commitments from major stakeholders, like the Browns, Amtrak, RRHOF, etc.  It doesn't have to be one developer, but I do think there needs to be a critical mass to get movement on the lakefront.

 

11 minutes ago, X said:

More base hits- like the City Club Apartments or the Beacon, not to mention the really small projects that we never seem to see outside of the odd adaptive reuse.

 

Agreed!- which is why I don't think we should worry about the lakefront at all right now.  We have enough work to do just to maintain and rebuild the core.  SHW is great and all, but keep in mind, they are relocating from within downtown, meanwhile other companies are still leaving downtown (Medical Mutual).  These residential project are great, but they aren't even keeping pace with the loss of office workers we've seen in the last 10-20 years.  I think the focus should be on more base hits, meaning adaptive reuse, urban infill, and that sort of thing.

16 minutes ago, Dino said:

 

What you are suggesting is exactly what growing cities do.  It's what Cleveland did in the early 1900's.  They could do it then, because the population was growing rapidly, and as soon as those lots were created, they would be filled up.  That's not the case in Cleveland today.  The population in the City is still shrinking, and regionally has been pretty stagnant.  Cleveland just doesn't have the type of growth that justifies that amount of public investment.  That's why I think you need commitments from major stakeholders, like the Browns, Amtrak, RRHOF, etc.  It doesn't have to be one developer, but I do think there needs to be a critical mass to get movement on the lakefront.

 

 

Agreed!- which is why I don't think we should worry about the lakefront at all right now.  We have enough work to do just to maintain and rebuild the core.  SHW is great and all, but keep in mind, they are relocating from within downtown, meanwhile other companies are still leaving downtown (Medical Mutual).  These residential project are great, but they aren't even keeping pace with the loss of office workers we've seen in the last 10-20 years.  I think the focus should be on more base hits, meaning adaptive reuse, urban infill, and that sort of thing.

I would think the city being proactive and taking the lead would make an easy buy in from potential players. From here, and from out of town.

 

The Clinic and the healthcare industry here as a whole is set to double, at least, in the next 5-10 years. All those new residents will need places to live. Don’t just consider downtown office workers.

Edited March 1, 20232 yr by marty15