February 18Feb 18 I posted an idea for a stadium at the power plant site about 5 years ago. I think it would work great there. Edited February 18Feb 18 by freethink image
February 18Feb 18 I agree @freethink . I have mentioned the CEI site multiple times on this forum, but nobody ever responded.
February 18Feb 18 3 hours ago, marty15 said: How about we completely eliminate East 72nd from the tracks to 90. Make the Railroad underpass a park entrance. Turn all of this into a massive Gordon Park. The underpass on 90 can help extend the park to the north section, with the roadway and ramps removed. On the note of Gordon Park. This month's Metroparks agenda gives a first glimpse into the plans for Gordon Park. Technical design work is formally kicking off, but the consensus plan is the guide.
February 18Feb 18 16 minutes ago, Ethan said: On the note of Gordon Park. This month's Metroparks agenda gives a first glimpse into the plans for Gordon Park. Technical design work is formally kicking off, but the consensus plan is the guide. I'm not a big fan of removing all 5 baseball fields. Reducing it down to 2 or 3 makes sense, but there are so few sports fields in general left in the city that I'd hate to see what's left just become another empty grass lawn. Those fields are currently the only reason there are days when there are more than 2 cars in the parking lot. It's a park inbetween railroad tracks and a busy highway that has basically 0 people living within walking distance. The closest home is a 15 minute walk from this lawn. The multiple lakefront park spaces right across the highway have a lot more of a draw. Maybe 5-10 more people a day drive here to watch the sunset? This park is losing its only real use and not gaining any real attractions.
February 18Feb 18 Just now, PlanCleveland said: I'm not a big fan of removing all 5 baseball fields. Reducing it down to 2 or 3 makes sense, but there are so few sports fields in general left in the city that I'd hate to see what's left just become another empty grass lawn. Those fields are currently the only reason there are days when there are more than 2 cars in the parking lot. It's a park inbetween railroad tracks and a busy highway that has basically 0 people living within walking distance. The closest home is a 15 minute walk from this lawn. The multiple lakefront park spaces right across the highway have a lot more of a draw. Maybe 5-10 more people a day drive here to watch the sunset? This park is losing its only real use and not gaining any real attractions. I had the same thought. What I like about the consensus proposal is that it reorients the park to face MLK and the cultural gardens. While details are sparse to non-existent, I really like the idea of a Clevelanders Garden. That seems like a cool way to cap the cultural gardens and transition into Gordon Park. Removing the car entrance from the MLK side also seems like a great idea. In general I like the Eastern third of the proposal. But yeah, removing the ball fields seems like an interesting decision. Not sure it makes sense. Hopefully analytics were considered. E.g. are those fields necessary for local T-ball? how often were they used? etc. I'm not opposed to removing them, largely because I'm not a baseball player. I just hope the necessary due diligence was done. I dunno, maybe they could stripe for all grass fields? Or add one or two without disrupting the rest of the field? Or maybe they've already looked into it, and these just aren't needed anymore. -- It's too bad moving I-90 south in line with the Green Ribbon Coalition's proposal is off the table. That would effectively move this land north of the highway and turn it into lakefront. It would then make sense for the Metroparks to purchase the power plant site like @marty15 suggested.
February 18Feb 18 48 minutes ago, Ethan said: On the note of Gordon Park. This month's Metroparks agenda gives a first glimpse into the plans for Gordon Park. Technical design work is formally kicking off, but the consensus plan is the guide. A manicured grass lawn, with no real draw to get people to pick it over any other grass park in the city. The programming would have to be PHENOMINAL, otherwise this is a dud.
February 18Feb 18 Dang, yeah this seems like a mistake. I know there are several leagues that play at Gordon Park. The biggest impediment to Gordon Parks success will always be being next to I-90. Without capping part of the highway to make a better connection, it isn’t going to be the draw that it should be.
February 19Feb 19 1 hour ago, noname said: Dang, yeah this seems like a mistake. I know there are several leagues that play at Gordon Park. The biggest impediment to Gordon Parks success will always be being next to I-90. Without capping part of the highway to make a better connection, it isn’t going to be the draw that it should be. Land bridge that connects to the Lakefront?
February 22Feb 22 I didn't tease you with a bomb graphic because it's an academic competition. But it's still very cool. Click on the link to each of the entries to review their proposals. Got an opinion on who should win? Universities worldwide compete to redesign Cleveland’s Lake Shore Power Plant site By Ken Prendergast / February 22, 2025 With deference to the classic movie “Casablanca,” of all the abandoned industrial sites in North America, the Urban Land Institute’s (ULI) Hines Student Competition picked Cleveland’s vacated Lake Shore Power Plant site as the canvas for its 2025 design competition. Four finalists were announced today in the competition that drew 82 entries from universities worldwide, with the winner to be named April 3 in Cleveland. MORE: https://neo-trans.blog/2025/02/22/universities-worldwide-compete-to-redesign-clevelands-lake-shore-power-plant-site/ "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
February 23Feb 23 On 2/22/2025 at 3:09 AM, KJP said: I didn't tease you with a bomb graphic because it's an academic competition. But it's still very cool. Click on the link to each of the entries to review their proposals. Got an opinion on who should win? Universities worldwide compete to redesign Cleveland’s Lake Shore Power Plant site By Ken Prendergast / February 22, 2025 With deference to the classic movie “Casablanca,” of all the abandoned industrial sites in North America, the Urban Land Institute’s (ULI) Hines Student Competition picked Cleveland’s vacated Lake Shore Power Plant site as the canvas for its 2025 design competition. Four finalists were announced today in the competition that drew 82 entries from universities worldwide, with the winner to be named April 3 in Cleveland. MORE: https://neo-trans.blog/2025/02/22/universities-worldwide-compete-to-redesign-clevelands-lake-shore-power-plant-site/ Thanks Ken - didn't know this was such a big thing! I thought Jimmy said there are no other large tracts of land for development. May not be as big as BP, and not yet remediated, but there are options to enlarge the footprint at the periphery. Were the Haslams even curious passing it each day? This is even closer to their lakefront estate that North Coast harbor (though not sure if they can see it from their house as Tine Fey could see Ruzzia from Alaska). Oh well. Ken please send this to DeWine's team so he can add it to his alleged deliberations underway on how to he will ultimately help his HSG friends in the next budget while also helping our Lakefront and Riverfront needs. The clean-up and site prep should be expedited - the State or Metroparks should try to buy it so it can be optimally synced with CHEERS.
February 23Feb 23 On 2/22/2025 at 3:09 AM, KJP said: I didn't tease you with a bomb graphic because it's an academic competition. But it's still very cool. Click on the link to each of the entries to review their proposals. Got an opinion on who should win? Universities worldwide compete to redesign Cleveland’s Lake Shore Power Plant site By Ken Prendergast / February 22, 2025 With deference to the classic movie “Casablanca,” of all the abandoned industrial sites in North America, the Urban Land Institute’s (ULI) Hines Student Competition picked Cleveland’s vacated Lake Shore Power Plant site as the canvas for its 2025 design competition. Four finalists were announced today in the competition that drew 82 entries from universities worldwide, with the winner to be named April 3 in Cleveland. MORE: https://neo-trans.blog/2025/02/22/universities-worldwide-compete-to-redesign-clevelands-lake-shore-power-plant-site/ All of these look great. I think I like the Harvard plan the best, but maybe they've just swayed me with the nicest overall looking presentation and renderings. Although I don't think this development would need a 4 lane road running through it. The graphic showing the path different users would take through the property was really cool. Combining it with the WFL extension would be even better. You could even market a small portion of the apartments and condos in this development for local snowbirds, especially with the easy connection to a few marinas. Sell your house in the suburbs, rent or buy a place here or Downtown, and spend your time up north a short walk/bike/train ride away from the waterfront, Downtown summer entertainment, and your boat. And if you stay up here for the winter, you can get to Cavs/Monsters games or concerts by only walking outside for a minute or so. There is a newer district in Zurich called Manegg that is about 40 acres and is also boxed in by a highway, rail, and water. Oh look everybody, PlanCleveland is talking about Zurich again. But I really like going to and seeing how old cities build great new developments. This one has the rail line running right through the middle instead of on the side. A line that is single tracked for a good stretch of it providing 10-20 minute frequencies depending on the day/time. 2 stops north is a large shopping mall and movie theater, and across the street from that is a 500+ acre park and athletic field complex. Tower City or Lakefront development and Burke? It also terminates in a park that many locals camp and hike in via train on the weekends. This plays into my belief that Cleveland should really push to be a leader in urban park camping. And before someone says it, I mean willingly going camping and not homeless. We have an amazing park system and CVNP, yet there are almost no camp sites within an hour drive of the city. Campsites at a Burke park, CHEERS, or the Lakefront Nature Preserve would probably be 100% booked all summer and fall. But that's a discussion for a different thread. View 1 View 2 View 3 View 4
February 23Feb 23 4 hours ago, PlanCleveland said: All of these look great. I think I like the Harvard plan the best, but maybe they've just swayed me with the nicest overall looking presentation and renderings. Although I don't think this development would need a 4 lane road running through it. The graphic showing the path different users would take through the property was really cool. Combining it with the WFL extension would be even better. You could even market a small portion of the apartments and condos in this development for local snowbirds, especially with the easy connection to a few marinas. Sell your house in the suburbs, rent or buy a place here or Downtown, and spend your time up north a short walk/bike/train ride away from the waterfront, Downtown summer entertainment, and your boat. And if you stay up here for the winter, you can get to Cavs/Monsters games or concerts by only walking outside for a minute or so. There is a newer district in Zurich called Manegg that is about 40 acres and is also boxed in by a highway, rail, and water. Oh look everybody, PlanCleveland is talking about Zurich again. But I really like going to and seeing how old cities build great new developments. This one has the rail line running right through the middle instead of on the side. A line that is single tracked for a good stretch of it providing 10-20 minute frequencies depending on the day/time. 2 stops north is a large shopping mall and movie theater, and across the street from that is a 500+ acre park and athletic field complex. Tower City or Lakefront development and Burke? It also terminates in a park that many locals camp and hike in via train on the weekends. This plays into my belief that Cleveland should really push to be a leader in urban park camping. And before someone says it, I mean willingly going camping and not homeless. We have an amazing park system and CVNP, yet there are almost no camp sites within an hour drive of the city. Campsites at a Burke park, CHEERS, or the Lakefront Nature Preserve would probably be 100% booked all summer and fall. But that's a discussion for a different thread. View 1 View 2 View 3 View 4 Could use more trees but, yeah, I like Manegg. Good model/example. There's also tons of city-owned land between the CSX tracks and the Shoreway from East 9th almost all the way to East 55th (plus some on the north side of the Shoreway) that could be a part of an RFP or a series of RFPs to measure interest and get some ideas for redeveloping them. But that would probably have to fall under an expanded jurisdiction and direction of the North Coast Waterfront Development Corp., including setting a development masterplan and supportive zoning. A TIF from expanded area that could help fund infrastructure including a local share for an extension of the Waterfront Line. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
February 24Feb 24 On 2/22/2025 at 3:09 AM, KJP said: I didn't tease you with a bomb graphic because it's an academic competition. But it's still very cool. Click on the link to each of the entries to review their proposals. Got an opinion on who should win? Universities worldwide compete to redesign Cleveland’s Lake Shore Power Plant site By Ken Prendergast / February 22, 2025 With deference to the classic movie “Casablanca,” of all the abandoned industrial sites in North America, the Urban Land Institute’s (ULI) Hines Student Competition picked Cleveland’s vacated Lake Shore Power Plant site as the canvas for its 2025 design competition. Four finalists were announced today in the competition that drew 82 entries from universities worldwide, with the winner to be named April 3 in Cleveland. MORE: https://neo-trans.blog/2025/02/22/universities-worldwide-compete-to-redesign-clevelands-lake-shore-power-plant-site/ I like the concepts, but let's be realistic: how are we going to fill those buildings without cannibalizing other parts of the city? There's a little bit of Sim City Syndrome going on here, which I suppose is to be expected. Unless we can come up with some unique uses for it, a park or other recreational use makes the most sense. Maybe some form of museum that doesn't detract from UC. Considering that the powers that be tore out an entire lakeshore neighborhood they apparently found unsightly in order to expand a park, there should be some momentum behind that.
February 27Feb 27 On 2/22/2025 at 3:09 AM, KJP said: I didn't tease you with a bomb graphic because it's an academic competition. But it's still very cool. Click on the link to each of the entries to review their proposals. Got an opinion on who should win? Universities worldwide compete to redesign Cleveland’s Lake Shore Power Plant site By Ken Prendergast / February 22, 2025 With deference to the classic movie “Casablanca,” of all the abandoned industrial sites in North America, the Urban Land Institute’s (ULI) Hines Student Competition picked Cleveland’s vacated Lake Shore Power Plant site as the canvas for its 2025 design competition. Four finalists were announced today in the competition that drew 82 entries from universities worldwide, with the winner to be named April 3 in Cleveland. MORE: https://neo-trans.blog/2025/02/22/universities-worldwide-compete-to-redesign-clevelands-lake-shore-power-plant-site/ Oh well I am guessing my invitation to take part in this competition was lost in the mail :) So here we go as I wanted to illustrate how the Power Plant site could be used and should be used over any suburban site for the future Domed Stadium proposal. I wish the city/state was able to think outside the box and present more alternatives to the Browns much like Destination Cleveland did with the Vocon rendering for BKL. It was very well received by everyone. So with that same Vocon rendering, I placed that on the Power Plant site and it helped me visualize what could happen. Imagine that whole area with the Stadium, with the CHEERS project, with the upgrade of Gordon Park, also the future upgrade to the Shoreway, and N Marginal rd. These projects would also spur development of the Marina and the areas across the RR tracks. It would be our first true waterfront development. 5 years from now it would look completely different. Maybe Vocon can do another rendering for that site. Anyone here have a connection with them ? Also @KJP you should consider writing an article about alternative sites for the Stadium. Like the Post Office sites, BKL and the Power Plant site. It would get a lot of attention considering how polarizing the BP site is. Maybe it's not too late. Edited February 27Feb 27 by freethink .
February 27Feb 27 32 minutes ago, simplythis said: Where would they park at this site? Keep in mind this is a 65 acre site in which you need about 15 to 20 acres for the stadium itself. That leaves you enough room to build some parking/garages that could be built on top of. You also have properties south of this site across the RR tracks that would be designated for parking. Also the muni lots are under 2 miles away with shuttles that could be used on game days. And a short extension for the WFL could be part of the planning. Despite what Haslem has you believe many stadiums are not surrounded by parking lots.
February 27Feb 27 11 hours ago, freethink said: Oh well I am guessing my invitation to take part in this competition was lost in the mail :) So here we go as I wanted to illustrate how the Power Plant site could be used and should be used over any suburban site for the future Domed Stadium proposal. I wish the city/state was able to think outside the box and present more alternatives to the Browns much like Destination Cleveland did with the Vocon rendering for BKL. It was very well received by everyone. So with that same Vocon rendering, I placed that on the Power Plant site and it helped me visualize what could happen. Imagine that whole area with the Stadium, with the CHEERS project, with the upgrade of Gordon Park, also the future upgrade to the Shoreway, and N Marginal rd. These projects would also spur development of the Marina and the areas across the RR tracks. It would be our first true waterfront development. 5 years from now it would look completely different. Maybe Vocon can do another rendering for that site. Anyone here have a connection with them ? Also @KJP you should consider writing an article about alternative sites for the Stadium. Like the Post Office sites, BKL and the Power Plant site. It would get a lot of attention considering how polarizing the BP site is. Maybe it's not too late. Thank you for another reason to slow down dome talks and focus on short term Reno while considering all sites - let’s see the HSG plans for the current site already. and No, it shouldn’t be too late to the right thing - the window is open now given the rare maximum visibility and awareness this project now has - not just regionally but State-wide (and skittish NFL owners by now). We have nearing mass of publicity thanks to both the nonstop astroturf HSG PR releases combined with the leadership of Ronayne, Bibb and the growing grassroots opposition - who continue to shine sunlight on the shadowy HSG attempt at a quick hit and run escape to BP. Who knows where it ends but this needs more serious and transparent deliberation given the public investment in any site.
February 27Feb 27 8 hours ago, freethink said: Keep in mind this is a 65 acre site in which you need about 15 to 20 acres for the stadium itself. That leaves you enough room to build some parking/garages that could be built on top of. You also have properties south of this site across the RR tracks that would be designated for parking. Also the muni lots are under 2 miles away with shuttles that could be used on game days. And a short extension for the WFL could be part of the planning. Despite what Haslem has you believe many stadiums are not surrounded by parking lots. Great idea! Can WFL be extended to 55th and turn south there vs the often discussed 18th loop?
February 27Feb 27 I don't love this site because it takes walking out of the Browns games. That's one of the great things about the current location, people walk in from all over downtown. Tailgates, bars, restaurants, Rapid at Tower City. It's actually easy. The 72nd site would be somewhat remote and force everyone to spend the morning right around the site.
February 27Feb 27 10 hours ago, simplythis said: Where would they park at this site? I'm not a big fan of the remoteness but IMO that's not a major concern. There seems to be plenty of space and you can always bridge over the tracks. Lots of unutilized/underutilized industrial space there.
February 27Feb 27 38 minutes ago, Cleburger said: I don't love this site because it takes walking out of the Browns games. That's one of the great things about the current location, people walk in from all over downtown. Tailgates, bars, restaurants, Rapid at Tower City. It's actually easy. The 72nd site would be somewhat remote and force everyone to spend the morning right around the site. Eh. With a stadium here you could build that mixed use neighborhood, attract local bars and restaurants to open up here using existing buildings and boom you have a walkable attractive neighborhood. Extend the WFL line here and we're cooking.
February 27Feb 27 45 minutes ago, Cleburger said: I don't love this site because it takes walking out of the Browns games. That's one of the great things about the current location, people walk in from all over downtown. Tailgates, bars, restaurants, Rapid at Tower City. It's actually easy. The 72nd site would be somewhat remote and force everyone to spend the morning right around the site. That's a reason why the Haslams might actually like it. Creates a captive market. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
February 27Feb 27 1 hour ago, E Rocc said: I'm not a big fan of the remoteness but IMO that's not a major concern. There seems to be plenty of space and you can always bridge over the tracks. Lots of unutilized/underutilized industrial space there. It is more remote than the current site, but it isn't nearly as bad as what is going on in Buffalo with their brand new stadium. Dare I say I would take the BP site over the Buffalo site.
February 27Feb 27 2 hours ago, Cleburger said: I don't love this site because it takes walking out of the Browns games. That's one of the great things about the current location, people walk in from all over downtown. Tailgates, bars, restaurants, Rapid at Tower City. It's actually easy. The 72nd site would be somewhat remote and force everyone to spend the morning right around the site. Agreed. While it would be a much better site than Brook Park, it still doesn't solve any of the problems with Brook Park other than it's closer to Downtown. It still creates a district completely run by Jimmy that pulls customers from the existing businesses/infrastructure Downtown. It still doesn't help to build on or incentivize lakefront/landbridge plans, and likely pulls significant money away from them. It arguably has worse potential for transit connections. I don't see RTA being interested in spending hundreds of millions to extend the WFL for 10-12 events per year. And no potential 3C+D stop. You could say that extending the WFL and selling off land around it would lead to a development boom from Downtown to the stadium, but I just don't see that happening. We're hoping to develop the riverfront and lakefront. Where is the money and population going to come from for 3+ miles of development on this stretch that is a much less attractive area than Downtown, UC, Ohio City, Gordon Square/Battery Park, riverfront, and the lakefront? We can't even fill in parking craters in those existing areas with a lot of momentum already behind them. And like Brook Park, the development space is largely boxed in by a busy highway on one side and a lot of manufacturing/vacant buildings on the other. Although the balcony views would be much better here. Similar to Brook Park, it's a great project if we're projecting to add 300k people over the next 30 years or in City Skylines. But with the current realities of the regional economy and population, any stadium that isn't walking distance from the Downtown core is going to hurt the region.
February 27Feb 27 39 minutes ago, PlanCleveland said: Agreed. While it would be a much better site than Brook Park, it still doesn't solve any of the problems with Brook Park other than it's closer to Downtown. It still creates a district completely run by Jimmy that pulls customers from the existing businesses/infrastructure Downtown. It still doesn't help to build on or incentivize lakefront/landbridge plans, and likely pulls significant money away from them. It arguably has worse potential for transit connections. I don't see RTA being interested in spending hundreds of millions to extend the WFL for 10-12 events per year. And no potential 3C+D stop. You could say that extending the WFL and selling off land around it would lead to a development boom from Downtown to the stadium, but I just don't see that happening. We're hoping to develop the riverfront and lakefront. Where is the money and population going to come from for 3+ miles of development on this stretch that is a much less attractive area than Downtown, UC, Ohio City, Gordon Square/Battery Park, riverfront, and the lakefront? We can't even fill in parking craters in those existing areas with a lot of momentum already behind them. And like Brook Park, the development space is largely boxed in by a busy highway on one side and a lot of manufacturing/vacant buildings on the other. Although the balcony views would be much better here. Similar to Brook Park, it's a great project if we're projecting to add 300k people over the next 30 years or in City Skylines. But with the current realities of the regional economy and population, any stadium that isn't walking distance from the Downtown core is going to hurt the region. I think the biggest difference is this exist within close proximity to city neighborhoods. This could lead to redevelopment of adjacent properties, re-invigorating the surrounding area and creating a multi-use multipurpose area. So extending the WFL would lead to access to the stadium yes but could be one of the few rapid stops that sits in close proximity to a dense destination neighborhood.
February 27Feb 27 Another thought. Since Stadiums are money losers for municipal governments, if we're going to have a remote stadium separated from downtown, do we actually want it in Cleveland proper? I know it's a pride thing, and fair enough, but it seems like there's more in subsidies than actual tax revenue from the stadium. If that's the case why not let them fleece Brook Park's taxpayers instead of Cleveland's? The big advantage of moving to Brook Park is the City of Cleveland no longer has to support it. The big advantage of downtown is supporting existing infrastructure. I'm not sure the city would get enough from a remote stadium located in the city to justify the kind of subsidies the Haslams are requesting.
February 27Feb 27 2 hours ago, MyPhoneDead said: Eh. With a stadium here you could build that mixed use neighborhood, attract local bars and restaurants to open up here using existing buildings and boom you have a walkable attractive neighborhood. Extend the WFL line here and we're cooking. Which is great and i support any "mixed use" development within the city limits, but defeats the argument of moving the Browns out of downtown for Brookpark. I'd rather spend the money on the current site. Upgrade the stadium, and add mixed use to the area around it.
February 27Feb 27 2 hours ago, cfdwarrior said: It is more remote than the current site, but it isn't nearly as bad as what is going on in Buffalo with their brand new stadium. Dare I say I would take the BP site over the Buffalo site. I've been to Rich Stadium. It's not exactly urban, but it seemed to suit the crowds. Might be tradition by now.
February 27Feb 27 No site is perfect each will have its own issues. But at some point you have to choose a site and make it work. To me the power plant site can be something great and keep Jimmy from making a huge mistake in BP. The goal here should be to make a decision that moves the city of Cleveland forward, BP does none of that. Personally I like the stadium where it is now and the land bridge will make it even better. But why renovate and be without a stadium for 3 years, we've seen that movie. If it's going to be 3 years without the stadium why not just tear it down at the end of next season. It would take 6 months to demo and two and a half years to build a new dome in its place. The foundation will already be there. So far this whole saga has been directed by Haslem. The city needs to take control and offer more options.
February 27Feb 27 If the college design competition proposals are realistic, I think they are better use than a stadium. *If
February 27Feb 27 5 hours ago, surfohio said: If the college design competition proposals are realistic, I think they are better use than a stadium. *If I am sure we will get some kind of value engineered version of those proposals. A half dozen 5/2 stick built buildings. And they will be marketed as luxury lakefront living with rent prices to match. And only for the select few who can afford them. But when will the next time be that 65 acres of lakefront property within the city limits becomes available? I have always believed that Great Spaces should be Public Places. Somewhere that everyone in the region can gather and celebrate together. To me that would be the proper use of this property.
February 28Feb 28 15 minutes ago, freethink said: I am sure we will get some kind of value engineered version of those proposals. A half dozen 5/2 stick built buildings. And they will be marketed as luxury lakefront living with rent prices to match. And only for the select few who can afford them. But when will the next time be that 65 acres of lakefront property within the city limits becomes available? I have always believed that Great Spaces should be Public Places. Somewhere that everyone in the region can gather and celebrate together. To me that would be the proper use of this property. I think as with almost all of the potential shoreline projects the secret formula is that "perfect" mix of public access and private ownership. There are lots of examples of how this has been done along desirable waterfronts elsewhere. Unfortunately Ohio is also a lesson in worst-case scenario for coastal development. We gotta learn from our mistakes, and the almost total privatization as you suggest has been a detriment for access to Lake Erie.
February 28Feb 28 8 hours ago, freethink said: No site is perfect each will have its own issues. But at some point you have to choose a site and make it work. To me the power plant site can be something great and keep Jimmy from making a huge mistake in BP. The goal here should be to make a decision that moves the city of Cleveland forward, BP does none of that. Personally I like the stadium where it is now and the land bridge will make it even better. But why renovate and be without a stadium for 3 years, we've seen that movie. If it's going to be 3 years without the stadium why not just tear it down at the end of next season. It would take 6 months to demo and two and a half years to build a new dome in its place. The foundation will already be there. So far this whole saga has been directed by Haslem. The city needs to take control and offer more options. True but without seeing the stadium reno plans we are the whim of HSG assurances without independent validation that it would be out of commission for 3 years. Could the work also be compressed between some of the season (as Progressive) thereby reducing the need to play all games elsewhere? We don't know anything thanks to the blackout on any news about the reno plans HSG already completed (reportedly to rave reviews per the public grapevine) before the out of nowhere whiplash switch from lakefront planning to BP. There is enough time to make plans for some games elsewhere such as Canton - the NFL owners could easily chip in to expand the stadium from 23,000 upward by then and collectively sponsor the temp move or marketed as the Canton residency (think J-Lo or Taylor Swift Vegas residency) - the birthplace of football. Why not some games at The Shoe in Columbus where Jimmy could clean up on ticket sales (after season tickets holders get first dibs), which would also help Jimmy with that market usually split between the Browns, Bengals and Steelers. We don't mind sharing with our C-bus friends short-term as Browns fans from all over wouldn't mind the opportunity to play in the Shoe. Plus the Haslams can further ingratiate themselves with the C-bus market and Dee's Columbus Partnership cronies where it seems they are loved (at least more than in Northern Ohio). Then there are nearby NFL stadiums in Buffalo, Pittsburgh or Detroit to take over their stadiums as the home team while their teams are on the road (NFL moves games last minute all the time when natural weather/safety issues require moving a game location)... Who knows if Ronayne, Bibb and DeWine can convince the self-labelled civic-minded Jimmy and Dee to recommit to Lakefront plans to now include a promise of a near-future Lakefront Dome and village but preceded by a scaled back basic remodel in the interim. Who knows? But until this plays out further and we have more transparency about each option we shouldn't give in to Jimmy's pressure to abruptly shut down reasonable civic deliberations. Edited February 28Feb 28 by Willo
February 28Feb 28 14 minutes ago, Willo said: True but without seeing the stadium reno plans we are the whim of HSG assurances without independent validation that it would be out of commission for 3 years. Could the work also be compressed between some of the season (as Progressive) thereby reducing the need to play all games elsewhere? We don't know anything thanks to the blackout on any news about the reno plans HSG already completed (reportedly to rave review Why not some games at The Shoe in Columbus. ...Plus the Haslams can further ingratiate themselves with the C-bus market @Willo Our Columbus friends might not be in favor of the "factory of sadness" Browns playing in the beloved Shoe. You know, cooties and all that. - DO
February 28Feb 28 10 hours ago, DO_Summers said: @Willo Our Columbus friends might not be in favor of the "factory of sadness" Browns playing in the beloved Shoe. You know, cooties and all that. - DO Oops didn’t think of that. Hopefully our championship jinx is not contagious to our Buckeyes since doing so well since the Cooper years. I have a feeling Columbus is inoculated or immune from our Browns woes given their booming economy and plus they seem to have fared better than us with the Haslam clown car given their success in the nearby arena district.
February 28Feb 28 The championship jinx didn't affect the former Browns after they moved to Baltimore.
February 28Feb 28 1 hour ago, LibertyBlvd said: The championship jinx didn't affect the former Browns after they moved to Baltimore. So you're saying we need a new stadium AND name to win a Super Bowl.
February 28Feb 28 34 minutes ago, MyPhoneDead said: So you're saying we need a new stadium AND name to win a Super Bowl. Or maybe just a new name.
March 1Mar 1 On 2/27/2025 at 8:47 AM, KJP said: That's a reason why the Haslams might actually like it. Creates a captive market. They've been trying to capture the game-related money downtown for years. That lame faux "tailgate" being a classic example. Brookpark would let them preclude independent tailgates and keep all the indoor pregaming $$ as well. In this location, the downtown bars could at least run shuttles or connect to the WFL if it expands. So from a Haslam perspective, not so good.
March 1Mar 1 (03/01) The brick paves on the pier drive at Voinovich Park are half complete and looking real nice. Also, new lighting all along the pier is mostly installed - a much needed refresh. Things are starting to come together… I wanted to get up to the rock hall for photos but I had to dip before the parking ticketer found my car lol 👀
March 4Mar 4 And maybe they can restore Donald Gray Gardens, or at least a smaller version of it. Edited March 4Mar 4 by LibertyBlvd
March 4Mar 4 Pop-up Park. https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/we-follow-through/parking-fees-and-a-pop-up-park-cleveland-takes-more-steps-toward-lakefront-plan
March 5Mar 5 On 3/1/2025 at 6:58 PM, Geowizical said: (03/01) The brick paves on the pier drive at Voinovich Park are half complete and looking real nice. Also, new lighting all along the pier is mostly installed - a much needed refresh. Things are starting to come together… I wanted to get up to the rock hall for photos but I had to dip before the parking ticketer found my car lol 👀 Are they removing the mobile home/Goodtime office? That thing is such an eyesore.
March 6Mar 6 north coast yard by the mather — https://www.instagram.com/reel/DGzDmw0JOZj/?igsh=ejduMTg2NWVrZ2U1
March 11Mar 11 Sorry to bump this for something silly and not an actual development thats happening, but once the stadium's gone, let's get one of these on the lakefront. James Dolan (nephew of Larry Dolan) is the CEO of the company who did the Sphere. https://consequence.net/2025/03/mini-spheres-smaller-capacity/
March 11Mar 11 16 minutes ago, daybreaker said: Sorry to bump this for something silly and not an actual development thats happening, but once the stadium's gone, let's get one of these on the lakefront. James Dolan (nephew of Larry Dolan) is the CEO of the company who did the Sphere. https://consequence.net/2025/03/mini-spheres-smaller-capacity/ I'd rather have this somewhere in the Gateway District.
Create an account or sign in to comment