DawgTalkers.net
I didn't know where to put this but thought it was a cool graphic to share. I'm sure many already know this but for those who don't often travel to different stadiums, here his a picture showing how close or far a stadium is from downtown.

Maybe they should re think the way they do stadiums altogether.

sure, why can't I watch the game live from my car anyway. or, why do people all have to gather in one place anyway, what about, what about, what if, hundreds could watch from a ceiling down view, windows in the top of a dome.
or just ride around the field in a low level blimp 20 feet up, that would be cool. I GOT it.
Camera Ball. Ball Camera,

Ehh, put it... 8? 4? miles from downtown? Well, cities like Chicago, and Cleveland, others? are up against a coast
and therefore are different from
cities that sprawl out from a center like KC, Indy, Cincy, and that alone should be a major consideration.

" A tiger got him."
Posted By: Ballpeen Re: Stadium Placement Relative to Downtown - 01/21/23 02:43 PM
Downtown is overrated. It's nice if itis fairly close, and some of those stadiums listed are a bit deceiving. Two that I have been to, Tampa and Chicago are downtown stadiums by my definition even if they aren't sitting between skyscrapers.

There are advantages to being away from the downtown area. It creates a bit more infrastructure in the way of hotels, restaurants, etc, and it generally eases congestion getting in and out of the stadium area.

But no doubt you don't want to follow the brainless mold the Cavs undertook when they stuck their arena out in Richfield. That was moronic.
Posted By: dawg66 Re: Stadium Placement Relative to Downtown - 01/21/23 04:19 PM
Maybe we need to build a new stadium outside the downtown area, 9 out of the 12 teams to have never won a SuperBowl have downtown stadiums. lol
Posted By: PitDAWG Re: Stadium Placement Relative to Downtown - 01/21/23 04:36 PM
That may help answer the age old question, "Is it something in the water?"
Posted By: Ballpeen Re: Stadium Placement Relative to Downtown - 01/21/23 05:22 PM
Originally Posted by dawg66
Maybe we need to build a new stadium outside the downtown area, 9 out of the 12 teams to have never won a SuperBowl have downtown stadiums. lol

The site most discussed is on the bluff above the muni lot. TV 3 and the FBI are up there. Getting them to move would be seamless. After that is a bunch of worn down buildings and gravel parking lots which would be easy enough to buy...either willingly or by legal action.
Just speaking for myself and family, but we always enjoyed the location of the stadium. There is so much to do around there. You park the car, either tailgate or get something to eat at a local pub. Walk to the stadium. Walk to a few bars after the game to eat again and drink some more. Traffic has cleared by the time you are ready to leave.
Posted By: EveDawg Re: Stadium Placement Relative to Downtown - 01/21/23 06:19 PM
Originally Posted by Versatile Dog
Just speaking for myself and family, but we always enjoyed the location of the stadium. There is so much to do around there. You park the car, either tailgate or get something to eat at a local pub. Walk to the stadium. Walk to a few bars after the game to eat again and drink some more. Traffic has cleared by the time you are ready to leave.

This. I love walking to/from the stadium and walking around downtown. I usually try to get a hotel downtown, so it works out perfect.

I understand that if you are coming from the suburbs it may be a pain. But I understand the train to the stadium is out of commission. Atlanta's stadium is downtownish. I take the train in directly to the stadium. Easy peasy. Love it. I don't walk around Atl downtown though, because it's unsafe. That is one thing I love about Cleveland, I have never felt unsafe walking around downtown. Nobody tries to sell me drugs. No panhandlers. No sketchy people. Just drunk Browns fans.
Posted By: PitDAWG Re: Stadium Placement Relative to Downtown - 01/21/23 06:23 PM
I always liked the central location of the stadium as well. I understand what Peen is saying but why would a city build infrastructure outside the city when it's already available in the city? You already have the hotels downtown to absorb the crowds. The attractions like the Rock&Roll HOF, eateries, etc... are already there. I do understand it would be a positive in the case of traffic after the game but that's the only actual positive I can take away from it. And as far as that goes, I've never had a terrible problem getting out of there after a game.
I bet neither of you are driving after a game to Columbus 7I south is like dodging stuntmen for 2.4 hours and it wouldn't clear up until late night, so for anyone who may work on Monday, it might be easy to leave the stadium, but you are putting your life in the hands of other drivers and there is about no way around it.
Posted By: PitDAWG Re: Stadium Placement Relative to Downtown - 01/21/23 07:32 PM
You put your life in the hands of other drivers any time you drive in traffic. Your only option is defensive driving.
Originally Posted by THROW LONG
I bet neither of you are driving after a game to Columbus 7I south is like dodging stuntmen for 2.4 hours and it wouldn't clear up until late night, so for anyone who may work on Monday, it might be easy to leave the stadium, but you are putting your life in the hands of other drivers and there is about no way around it.

What would moving the location of the stadium do to "clear" up 71 south all the way to Columbus?
I get that it's different for everyone, but when we lived in Ohio, our house was in country setting even though it was technically the suburbs. We had acreage w/a lot of it being wooded. All except our actual yard, which had been cleared of the majority of trees. Behind the woods was a cornfield and that was flanked by a horse farm. So, going into the city was kind of cool. Would not want to live there, but it was cool having everything right there. I also liked not having to drive around looking for places to eat/drink. It was nice just to walk among the people w/many dressed in Browns gear.
It wouldn't but both said about the current location that
"Traffic has cleared by the time you are ready to leave"
and
"I've never had a terrible problem getting out of there after a game" Plus it's not just something you can change 30 minutes or even an hour earlier or later to avoid.
Posted By: Ballpeen Re: Stadium Placement Relative to Downtown - 01/22/23 09:34 AM
Originally Posted by Versatile Dog
Just speaking for myself and family, but we always enjoyed the location of the stadium. There is so much to do around there. You park the car, either tailgate or get something to eat at a local pub. Walk to the stadium. Walk to a few bars after the game to eat again and drink some more. Traffic has cleared by the time you are ready to leave.

I like the location as well. I am just pointing out some benefits of a stadium not being in the central business district.

Most games I don't stay downtown. When I only came up for 1-2 games a year, I always did for the reasons already mentioned. Now that I come up for at least 6-7 of the home games, I only stay downtown for the night games. I do have to consider the budget spent on hotel rooms. Generally speaking you drop $150 a night staying outside of town. At 2-3 nights per game, that starts to add up over multiple games a year. That $150 also takes in to account the daily parking fees associated with staying downtown.

And to be fair, I avoid the traffic and downtown game parking by getting on the Rapid train out in Brookpark and go to the Terminal Tower. I think the senior daily pass if $2.50 a day. You can't beat being able to park your car and getting a round trip ride for $2.50. Maybe it's a $5 pass. Either way, you can't beat that.
Posted By: Ballpeen Re: Stadium Placement Relative to Downtown - 01/22/23 09:48 AM
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
I always liked the central location of the stadium as well. I understand what Peen is saying but why would a city build infrastructure outside the city when it's already available in the city? You already have the hotels downtown to absorb the crowds. The attractions like the Rock&Roll HOF, eateries, etc... are already there. I do understand it would be a positive in the case of traffic after the game but that's the only actual positive I can take away from it. And as far as that goes, I've never had a terrible problem getting out of there after a game.

Many times the footprint of a new stadium is larger than many cities have available. Unless you tear down the existing structure and play at some remote location for several years there is no real option. NYC as an example didn't have options to build a new stadium in Manhattan. Nor where the old stadium existed. The braves new stadium is outside of town. The only available places to build we more or less in dangerous locations. Not many are going to go to games in high crime areas.
Posted By: GMdawg Re: Stadium Placement Relative to Downtown - 01/22/23 02:37 PM
I vote that they move the stadium to my neighborhood so I can walk to the game, and tailgate.
Originally Posted by GMdawg
I vote that they move the stadium to my neighborhood so I can walk to the game, and tailgate.

I second that. I think I could make it to your neighborhood to go to games.
Posted By: jfanent Re: Stadium Placement Relative to Downtown - 01/22/23 03:41 PM
There's something about seeing the city's skyline and Lake Erie up close from the stadium that adds to the experience.
Originally Posted by jfanent
There's something about seeing the city's skyline and Lake Erie up close from the stadium that adds to the experience.
I agree. And I think it’s even moreso with baseball
Posted By: PitDAWG Re: Stadium Placement Relative to Downtown - 01/22/23 04:30 PM
While I do understand your point, Cleveland isn't New York City. There are actually many areas that are littered with old rust belt manufacturing that have closed shop. Both the cost and ability of being able to locate a stadium in Cleveland doesn't seem as though that would be an issue. I find the two beyond reasonable to compare.

And then you have the negative impact it would have on businesses in the city. The loss of revenue to the hotels and eateries. The loss of tax revenue. In that way too Cleveland is not New York City. Cleveland would have a much tougher time dealing with that loss in revenue.

I do understand what you mean though. The best example I can give you that I know about first hand is Kentucky Speedway which was built in Sparta, Kentucky. It's pretty much in BFE between Cincinnati and Louisville. If you wish to talk about a location where nothing was there, that's the place. lol I have several relatives that live withing a few miles of the racetrack. An entire economy has slowly been built around that racetrack. An economy that never existed there before. It has been great for the community. Hotels and eateries. Supporting race businesses. Quite a boost for them. The only real difference here is they didn't steal that economic boom from their neighbor. No city or town around them were punished or lost economically so they could thrive.

That's what would happen if you relocated the Browns out of the city to a suburb. And my guess would be that most of the people that moved to those suburbs did so to avoid the mess you have in the city. I could only see the city of Cleveland suffer if they lost the revenue associated with the Browns being moved to a suburb. And if what I've seen proposed should happen, a dome, that revenue would be exponentially higher.
Posted By: Ballpeen Re: Stadium Placement Relative to Downtown - 01/23/23 01:58 PM
Again, I don't advocate the team move out to Medina. I like downtown as well. I like my club seats where i can sit and overlook the lake and innder harbor before games. I like seeing the tops of several buildings while sitting in the seats.

When a new stadium is erected, a new site will have to be found. The one I mentioned earlier would be a good option, even if it is east of the current stadium, by maybe 1 mile. More or less overlooking the muni lot and burke lakefront.

Earlier I said I only stayed downtown for night games. I wasn't clear...it costs near $150 a night more than staying outside of town. I stay at a marriott courtyard in middleburgh heights (berea)for $110 a night You start going in to a downtown hotel and you start paying around $210 a night plus daily parking for your vehicle.
For nostalgic reasons, I like the stadium right where it is. Same field that the Browns have played on since their inception in the 40’s. - With new seating built around the same hallowed field. The current stadium has what, 30 years left? Absolutely no reason to move it or knock it down anytime soon. It looks great on the outside and inside. Cleveland doesn’t have money to waste by tearing down a stadium for absolutely no reason. And for all this talk about a dome and the revenue it would bring in…. For who? Who would benefit from the additional revenue? The city of Cleveland? Do any of you think that the city of Cleveland, with their incompetent and unqualified politicians would manage the revenue in an intelligent way? No way.
Posted By: Ballpeen Re: Stadium Placement Relative to Downtown - 01/24/23 11:45 AM
Originally Posted by RememberMuni
For nostalgic reasons, I like the stadium right where it is. Same field that the Browns have played on since their inception in the 40’s. - With new seating built around the same hallowed field. The current stadium has what, 30 years left? Absolutely no reason to move it or knock it down anytime soon. It looks great on the outside and inside. Cleveland doesn’t have money to waste by tearing down a stadium for absolutely no reason. And for all this talk about a dome and the revenue it would bring in…. For who? Who would benefit from the additional revenue? The city of Cleveland? Do any of you think that the city of Cleveland, with their incompetent and unqualified politicians would manage the revenue in an intelligent way? No way.


With the miles of underground hot water tube running under the field, it isn't the same field you mention.

Trying to get the team to use that stadium another 30 years would be a good way for unqualified, incompetent politicians to run the Browns out of town like the group in charge who ran the Browns out of town last time.
Originally Posted by Ballpeen
Originally Posted by RememberMuni
For nostalgic reasons, I like the stadium right where it is. Same field that the Browns have played on since their inception in the 40’s. - With new seating built around the same hallowed field. The current stadium has what, 30 years left? Absolutely no reason to move it or knock it down anytime soon. It looks great on the outside and inside. Cleveland doesn’t have money to waste by tearing down a stadium for absolutely no reason. And for all this talk about a dome and the revenue it would bring in…. For who? Who would benefit from the additional revenue? The city of Cleveland? Do any of you think that the city of Cleveland, with their incompetent and unqualified politicians would manage the revenue in an intelligent way? No way.


With the miles of underground hot water tube running under the field, it isn't the same field you mention.

Trying to get the team to use that stadium another 30 years would be a good way for unqualified, incompetent politicians to run the Browns out of town like the group in charge who ran the Browns out of town last time.

OOOOhh, then they could start over again, and we can restart this 30 year abissmal process.
Crazy to think our stadium is already 25 years old. It’s one of the most bland stadiums in the NFL (and really never was top tier, even in its original years).

I like the location for nostalgia to be on the lake, but wouldn’t be opposed to moving it either
Posted By: Ballpeen Re: Stadium Placement Relative to Downtown - 01/24/23 04:19 PM
Weather impacts all seasons. There is no excuse to limit usage by not covering the thing.
Posted By: PitDAWG Re: Stadium Placement Relative to Downtown - 01/24/23 04:31 PM
Yeah, it was awful the way building a new stadium was going on the ballot and polls had shown it was almost guaranteed to be approved by the voters when Art made his deal with Baltimore. Those damned politicians!
Posted By: Milk Man Re: Stadium Placement Relative to Downtown - 01/24/23 04:50 PM
Originally Posted by Ballpeen
Weather impacts all seasons. There is no excuse to limit usage by not covering the thing.

Here's another reason that I expect the Haslams to push for a new stadium in the near future.

If/when this actually happens, it would be a real kick in the teeth to Browns STHs if the Browns should manage to stumble into a home AFC championship game only to have it moved to a neutral site.

Posted By: FATE Re: Stadium Placement Relative to Downtown - 01/24/23 04:53 PM
Not sure if my memory serves, but wasn't that basically after the fact?
Originally Posted by FATE
Not sure if my memory serves, but wasn't that basically after the fact?

Yes.

Quote
Art Modell announced on Nov. 6, 1995 that he was moving the Browns to Baltimore for the 1996 football season. The announcement secured the demise of the stadium. The initial demolition of the stadium began on Dec. 17, 1995 as fans began tearing out the wooden bleacher seats in the Dawg Pound to take home for souvenirs after the final Browns' game at Cleveland Municipal Stadium. In January 1996, Michael White reached an agreement with the owners of the NFL that Cleveland could keep the Browns name and colors and would be granted an expansion team in 1999 if they would agree to construct a new stadium to league specifications. Plans to construct the new stadium (Cleveland Browns Stadium) on the same site as Cleveland Municipal Stadium were approved in April 1996.

From this article: https://case.edu/ech/articles/c/cleveland-municipal-stadium
Posted By: dawg66 Re: Stadium Placement Relative to Downtown - 01/24/23 05:36 PM
Vers, your quote was from when Mayor White tried to get a new team after the fact. There was already a memorandum on the ballot to build a new stadium using tax payer money at the time Modell announced the move and it was voted in favor of just 2 days later.
Posted By: PitDAWG Re: Stadium Placement Relative to Downtown - 01/24/23 05:46 PM
You may be correct about that. The actual truth about Art never being offered a new stadium is totally incorrect. Those who blame the city for not offering Art a new stadium are incorrect. The fact is Art turned down a new stadium over much of what this very thread is about. Location......

Art Modell was offered a stadium for the Cleveland Browns and passed: Mark Naymik

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- What you think you know about Art Modell's decision to take the Browns out of Cleveland for a shiny new stadium in Baltimore is legend.

Today, the consciences of a couple of old-guard Cleveland politicians give us a long-hidden fact about Modell's departure. Specifically, when Modell claimed he would have stayed if city leaders had offered to build him a stadium, he was lying.

He was offered a new stadium.

At the Gateway sports complex.

He rejected the offer, years before leaving.

Since the former Browns and Ravens team owner died last week, we have rehashed the famous narrative that Modell left town out of frustration with political leaders who stuck him with the dumpy, history-rich Cleveland Municipal Stadium, which lacked the revenue-generating luxury suites and other amenities of newer stadiums.

Modell was particularly upset that leaders here bent over backward for Dick Jacobs and Gordon Gund, the former owners of the Indians and the Cavaliers, respectively, who were getting new homes -- courtesy of the taxpayers, at the Gateway sports complex completed in 1994 just north of the Inner Belt downtown.

The story of the stadium snub for years has left us asking: Why didn't city leaders just offer to build Modell a new stadium along with the others?

At the Gateway sports complex.

He rejected the offer, years before leaving.

Since the former Browns and Ravens team owner died last week, we have rehashed the famous narrative that Modell left town out of frustration with political leaders who stuck him with the dumpy, history-rich Cleveland Municipal Stadium, which lacked the revenue-generating luxury suites and other amenities of newer stadiums.

Modell was particularly upset that leaders here bent over backward for Dick Jacobs and Gordon Gund, the former owners of the Indians and the Cavaliers, respectively, who were getting new homes -- courtesy of the taxpayers, at the Gateway sports complex completed in 1994 just north of the Inner Belt downtown.

The story of the stadium snub for years has left us asking: Why didn't city leaders just offer to build Modell a new stadium along with the others?

After leaving town in 1996, Modell reinforced the snub story in interviews with news outlets, though he was not speaking at the time to The Plain Dealer, which he saw as part of the conspiracy against him.

"My major regret is that I should not have acceded to their request to stay on the side on Gateway," Modell told Cleveland Magazine in August 1996. He told the magazine he should have forced a football stadium into the Gateway conversation.

"I should have made my demands known at that time. Then we wouldn't be here now. . . . Had they even mumbled the word 'new stadium' I would have said, 'Let's talk.' "

It turns out that officials at the time tried to talk with him. Modell wouldn't listen.

George Forbes, who was Cleveland's council president during the late 1980s and a key player in negotiations with team owners during planning for Gateway, said he and others asked Modell to be a part of the project.

Forbes said leaders proposed building a third Gateway sports facility for the Browns, just south of the Inner Belt a couple of blocks from what is now Progressive Field.

Forbes' memory for detail is hazy. But he said then-Cuyahoga County Commissioner Tim Hagan, Jacobs and lawyers familiar with the financing options were present with Modell at a meeting when the offer was made.

"Tim and I were saying, 'While we are doing this, we might as well clear up the whole damn thing and build all three stadiums,' " Forbes told me. "This way we don't have to go back, and future councilmen and commissioners won't have to deal with the issue. Let's clear it up once and for all, was our thinking."

Jacobs died in 2009.

Forbes said he remained quiet for decades out of respect for Modell, whom he considered a friend.

"Art was my friend and a good man, and I didn't want to get into it," Forbes said. "I didn't want to pour hot water on a scalding dog."

But Forbes said he's long been bothered by the narrative that government failed Modell.

"I have thought about this meeting every time it was written or televised that no one made an offer to build a stadium," he said. "My words are to set the record straight about the governmental institutions and our involvement."

I called Hagan, who championed the Gateway complex and suffered great criticism about its cost to taxpayers. He confirmed Forbes' account. He described the offer as informal but honest.

"There is no question we made an effort," Hagan said.

Exactly why Modell didn't pursue the discussion remains a mystery.

Forbes recalled that Modell said he just wanted to stay in Municipal Stadium. Hagan couldn't add much more detail, nor would he speculate on why Modell didn't look harder at Gateway.

Historical stories from The Plain Dealer

From Modell's mouth
How Cleveland lost the Browns
Al Lerner speaks on how Art Modell decided to leave town
Bitter end: How Art Modell's on-again, off-again love affair with Cleveland finally ground to a halt
Modell to blast Cleveland on TV
Insider Mike Poplar's 1997 book offers more insights to Art Modell's thinking
Lerner buys new Browns
Battle for the Browns: The inside story
Browns owner lets loose on Ravens: Lerner says he felt like 'jerk' helping Modell

The timing of the Forbes and Hagan offer is critical to sorting out the legend. When Gateway planning was just starting, Modell was told to stay away. City leaders were concerned about appeasing Jacobs, who did not want to share a stadium with the football team and was threatening to move the Indians to a new city.

David Hopcraft, a longtime spokesman for Modell, said leaders planning Gateway were adamant that the Browns owner wait.

"They told him they would take care of him later," Hopcraft told me. Hopcraft also noted that Modell was one of the biggest contributors to the public campaign to persuade taxpayers to support the tax on alcohol and tobacco that paid for Gateway.

But Forbes said that after Jacobs was satisfied with plans for the new baseball stadium, the time was ripe to bring Modell into Gateway. So Forbes and Hagan made their offer.

Years later, politicians had cooled to the idea to asking taxpayers for more money for a football stadium. Modell no doubt became frustrated by his failure to win political backing for refurbishing Municipal Stadium.

Hagan famously quipped in 1995 about a proposed tax for Municipal Stadium: "We all wish Mother Teresa owned the Browns. It'd be an easier sell."

But timing is everything. And there was a time, long before Modell abandoned Cleveland, when he was offered a new stadium.

Whether or not a Gateway deal could have been struck with Modell -- and ultimately sold to voters -- is immaterial. That leaders offered Modell his own stadium at Gateway changes the storyline that has been central to his excuse for leaving. This fundamentally changes our view of one of the biggest moments in the history of this town.

aybe Forbes and Hagan were wise to keep the Gateway offer quiet all these years. Modell already was viewed by many as the worst villain Cleveland ever saw. And knowing that Modell was offered a stadium deal and still left would have only further damaged our psyche at the very time the city's football fans needed to move on.

I know the latest revelation may revive some fans' anger toward Modell, but I'm glad the record is clear, so we can move on.

We need to focus on the team's history on the field, not off.

Hopefully, this history won't be as painful.

https://www.cleveland.com/naymik/2012/09/art_modell_gateway_stadium.html
Posted By: dawg66 Re: Stadium Placement Relative to Downtown - 01/24/23 06:13 PM
Originally Posted by dawg66
Vers, your quote was from when Mayor White tried to get a new team after the fact. There was already a memorandum on the ballot to build a new stadium using tax payer money at the time Modell announced the move and it was voted in favor of just 2 days later.


My mistake it wasn't a vote to build a new stadium, it was a vote to extend the tax to generate enough money to build a new stadium.
It's okay. It was a long time ago even if it seems like just yesterday.
Posted By: jaybird Re: Stadium Placement Relative to Downtown - 01/25/23 02:37 AM
Originally Posted by Ballpeen
Weather impacts all seasons. There is no excuse to limit usage by not covering the thing.

Agreed... from a business aspect it makes zero sense to not have a dome....
Posted By: Ballpeen Re: Stadium Placement Relative to Downtown - 01/25/23 08:28 AM
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
Yeah, it was awful the way building a new stadium was going on the ballot and polls had shown it was almost guaranteed to be approved by the voters when Art made his deal with Baltimore. Those damned politicians!

My feeling is while they started to act, they should have been acting 3-4 years sooner. They were a day late, so to speak. By the way, I am not saying Art wasn't guilty in any of that. Muni had been a horrible venue for a long time. Kicking that can down the road started many years before.
Posted By: PitDAWG Re: Stadium Placement Relative to Downtown - 01/25/23 05:41 PM
If you read the article above they started much sooner. It wasn't the city that didn't offer him a stadium.
Posted By: EveDawg Re: Stadium Placement Relative to Downtown - 03/12/23 10:38 PM
https://www.cleveland.com/opinion/2...nocking-brent-larkin.html?outputType=amp

New stadium is out. Raising taxes to pay for stadium improvements is in.
Posted By: FrankZ Re: Stadium Placement Relative to Downtown - 03/12/23 11:49 PM
Originally Posted by EveDawg
https://www.cleveland.com/opinion/2...nocking-brent-larkin.html?outputType=amp

New stadium is out. Raising taxes to pay for stadium improvements is in.

Looks like Brent isn't happy.
Posted By: FATE Re: Stadium Placement Relative to Downtown - 03/12/23 11:51 PM
Originally Posted by FrankZ
Originally Posted by EveDawg
https://www.cleveland.com/opinion/2...nocking-brent-larkin.html?outputType=amp

New stadium is out. Raising taxes to pay for stadium improvements is in.

Looks like Brent isn't happy.

He's definitely got his panties in a bunch.
Originally Posted by EveDawg
https://www.cleveland.com/opinion/2...nocking-brent-larkin.html?outputType=amp

New stadium is out. Raising taxes to pay for stadium improvements is in.

That's too bad. I no longer live in the area, but that stadium sucks. They will never improve it to be a top flight facility. I was excited when they built it because my season tickets were behind a pole in the old stadium, but the new place is crap.
Posted By: PitDAWG Re: Stadium Placement Relative to Downtown - 03/13/23 08:15 AM
If you actually take the time to read this, it's a rant opinion piece that actually doesn't say this....

Quote
New stadium is out. Raising taxes to pay for stadium improvements is in.
Posted By: jfanent Re: Stadium Placement Relative to Downtown - 03/13/23 11:28 AM
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
If you actually take the time to read this, it's a rant opinion piece that actually doesn't say this....

Quote
New stadium is out. Raising taxes to pay for stadium improvements is in.


Challenge accepted. It's a rant opinion piece that actually did say it: "Hold onto your wallets, taxpayers! At the very least, you’re going to be asked to help fund a renovation of “FirstBribery” Stadium so extensive the cost will exceed $500 million, and may flirt with the $1 billion mark. What was described to me as a “massive renovation” will take two or three years to complete.

The renovation is the cheapest option on the table as Browns owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam begin talks with Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb and his team.
...a new domed stadium built somewhere else downtown is no longer being considered."
j/c:

Here ya go, Brent....

[Linked Image from s3.amazonaws.com]
Brent Larkin was The Plain Dealer’s editorial director from 1991 until his retirement in 2009 and appears to be suffering from angry old man syndrome.
so... new stadium being announced!
Posted By: FATE Re: Stadium Placement Relative to Downtown - 04/17/23 08:39 PM
Report: Plans to rebuild Cleveland Browns Stadium to be announced next week

According to NEOtrans blog, the Cleveland Browns and city of Cleveland will make major announcements next week regarding the future of Cleveland Browns Stadium.



Author: Ben Axelrod
Published: 3:01 PM EDT April 17, 2023
Updated: 4:05 PM EDT April 17, 2023

CLEVELAND — For the better part of the past year, there has been no shortage of speculation regarding the future of the Cleveland Browns' home stadium.

It now appears that an answer is in sight.

On Monday, NEOtrans blog's Ken Prendergast reported that the Browns, as well as city officials including Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb and Cuyahoga County Executive Chris Ronayne, are set to announce major plans for the team's facilities, including the recently renamed Cleveland Browns Stadium, and the surrounding downtown area. Those plans include a "rebuilding" of the stadium at its current location, as opposed to the building of a new stadium at a new site.

In addition to the upgraded stadium, Prendergast reports that the team and city will be announcing major renovations to the Browns' CrossCountry Mortgage Campus team facility in Berea, as well as a relocated Shoreway. Per Prendergast, the announcements could come as soon as next week and "will be about changes intended to activate the downtown lakefront by the end of this decade in ways it hasn’t been since the 1930s and to create a year-round fan-friendly village around the team’s suburban headquarters and practice facility, according to two sources familiar with the developments."

While Jimmy and Dee Haslam, who have owned the Browns since 2012, reportedly favored building a new stadium altogether, Prendergast reports that a rise in construction costs and a lack of political support left them at an impasse. Speaking at the NFL Owners Meetings last month, the Haslams said their focus remained on renovating the team's current stadium rather than building a new one.

"Cleveland would benefit tremendously from the development of the waterfront," Jimmy Haslam told reporters, according to The Akron Beacon Journal. "Having the stadium down there seems to be in everybody's best interest. So we're committed to redoing the stadium. In all likelihood, it's not going to have a dome, but it'll be a substantial remodel of the existing facility and we're probably 3, 4, 5 years away from that happening."

As for the potential timeline of all this, Prendergast reports that the rebuilding of Cleveland Browns Stadium could begin as early as 2026 and would require the team to play elsewhere for multiple seasons. Where that might be remains unclear, but Prendergast called Columbus "a likely location" considering the Haslam family's presence as the owners of the MLS' Columbus Crew.

Costs to rebuild the stadium are expected to exceed $1 billion. While it isn't believed that a roof is expected to be a part of the upgrades, sources tell Prendergast that the rebuilt stadium "won’t look anything like it does now.”

https://www.wkyc.com/article/sports.../95-ccaafc21-0421-4044-a58f-44a19a5996f8
Tom Benson stadium can seat 23,000 people. Will 5,000 to 10,000 additional seats be enough for a NFL team?
University of Akron Stadium??
Posted By: FL_Dawg Re: Stadium Placement Relative to Downtown - 04/17/23 10:02 PM
Originally Posted by Versatile Dog
Tom Benson stadium can seat 23,000 people. Will 5,000 to 10,000 additional seats be enough for a NFL team?

That all depends on the success of the team at that junture I think.
Posted By: Ballpeen Re: Stadium Placement Relative to Downtown - 04/17/23 11:08 PM
Originally Posted by Versatile Dog
Tom Benson stadium can seat 23,000 people. Will 5,000 to 10,000 additional seats be enough for a NFL team?


As long as it covers season ticket holders it can. They might be able to boot some holders up upper seats who haven't held them long and give then 1st rights to come back.
Posted By: Milk Man Re: Stadium Placement Relative to Downtown - 04/17/23 11:22 PM
Would not surprise me if the Browns played their games at Ohio Stadium during renovations. Similar to what the Vikings did in sharing the stadium with the University of Minnesota when the Vikings stadium was being built.

The Haslams have wanted to capture the Columbus market for awhile.
https://neo-trans.blog/2023/04/17/haslams-major-announcements/


Haslams’ major announcement(s)
By Ken Prendergast / April 17, 2023
TwitterFacebookLinkedInCopy LinkShare
Harbor Development Plan would transform the downtown lakefront
One or more announcements are expected, starting in a week about the future of downtown Cleveland’s lakefront and the Cleveland Browns’ CrossCountry Mortgage Campus in Berea. If the results of those announcements come to pass, downtown Cleveland’s lakefront and the north end of Berea are going to look very different by the end of this decade (AoDK). CLICK IMAGES TO ENLARGE THEM.

Rebuilt stadium, lakefront development, bigger Berea campus
Cleveland Browns owners Dee and Jimmy Haslam, Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb and Berea Mayor Cyril Kleem, Cuyahoga County Executive Chris Ronayne and others are due to make one or more big announcements starting next week that will include the lakefront football stadium, the Browns’ Berea campus, mixed-use developments around both plus a relocated Shoreway. The announcements will be about changes intended to activate the downtown lakefront by the end of this decade in ways it hasn’t been since the 1930s and to create a year-round fan-friendly village around the team’s suburban headquarters and practice facility, according to two sources familiar with the developments.

NEOtrans has learned that the Browns and the city of Cleveland did not see eye-to-eye about building a new stadium whose projected costs had grown into the billions. The Browns still want a new stadium but the $2 billion to $3 billion cost and lack of political support for spending that much has produced what one source called “an impasse” between the city. So the Haslams, the Bibb and Ronayne administrations and others will instead pursue financing for a major rebuilding of the existing football venue on the lakefront that could cost in excess of $1 billion.


Separately but related, the Haslams are also putting together a bond financing package in conjunction with the city and a proposed New Community Authority (NCA) called the North Coast Development Authority to construct a large new mixed-use land bridge near the stadium filled with thousands of parking spaces and a transit center to encourage more lakefront development including housing, live-work offices, hotels, shops and restaurants.

No one from the city, county or the Haslam Sports Group/Cleveland Browns were willing to comment on the upcoming announcement(s). The first of those announcements is due to come one week from today, sources said, when Bibb announces the new North Coast Development Authority.

“The Port Authority fully supports the Mayor and his approach,” said Will Friedman, president of the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority.” We see the NCA as an important tool for redevelopment and not as overlapping with the Port Authority. In fact, NCA’s are being used in Columbus and other Ohio communities with existing Port Authorities. Our Port will add its capabilities as needed so that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.”


A proposed land bridge linking downtown Cleveland’s grassy malls with North Coast Harbor is considered by the owners of the Browns and local officials as the key to unlocking the lakefront’s potential. It not only means relocating the Shoreway, but the thousands of parking spaces to be contained in the land bridge will allow parking lots around the stadium to be turned into development sites (AoDK).

The timeline and the moving parts are complex but are starting to come into focus. There are still many unknowns at this early stage. But between now and when the venue formerly known as FirstEnergy Stadium (reverting back to Cleveland Browns Stadium) is rebuilt, many of the team’s and Haslam Sports Group office staff will be temporarily relocated from their Berea headquarters to makeshift offices at the stadium and to remote working.

During the renovation of the CrossCountry Mortgage Campus, the Browns offseason training programs may have to be relocated for up to one year. Expansion of the campus will take longer — more than one year and may be carried out in phases depending on financing and city approvals. The expanded campus will reportedly include a new hotel, restaurants, shops, conference facilities. The Haslams and the city have already acquired more than 30 acres of land and demolished many homes and a church for this massive expansion of the Browns’ Berea facilities.


Then, starting as early as 2026 and continuing for two to three football seasons, depending on funding from public and private sources, the Haslams seek to rebuild Cleveland Browns Stadium so thoroughly that a source said “it won’t look anything like it does now.” The city-owned stadium will reportedly be rebuilt on their existing lease with the city rather than wait until after that 30-year lease expires following the 2028 football season. The reason for rebuilding the stadium sooner, coinciding with converting the Shoreway to a boulevard, is to avoid higher construction costs later on and start the next lease with the newly rebuilt stadium. That means the Browns will play for two to three seasons at another location.


It isn’t publicly known yet where the Browns will play, but Columbus is a likely location. The Haslams already have a presence there with their Columbus Crew Major League Soccer club. Its venue, the two-year-old, soccer-specific Lower.com Field, seats only 20,371. When the Browns played their first Orange & Brown Scrimmage on Aug. 7, 2015, they played to 49,734 fans at the Ohio State University’s 102,734-seat Ohio Stadium (aka The Horseshoe). It was the highest attendance for any Browns open practice or Family Day since at least 2005. The Browns would like to regain their fan dominance in Ohio’s capital city, taking attention away from their AFC North Division rivals Cincinnati Bengals and Pittsburgh Steelers.

Sources described the renovated Browns stadium as stripping the venue down to and possibly including some of its original load-bearing structure. “It will be a top-down rebuilding,” said one source. That’s why it’s more of a rebuild than a renovation. It includes constructing new, wider concourses around the stadium’s perimeter that are climate-controlled and offer views of the field. That alone would require a major rebuild of the stadium as the current concourses are lower than their entries into the seating bowl and the current structure cannot support them.


High-rises are proposed between East 9th Street, at left, and a new land bridge, with their parking to be included as part of the land bridge project. While this image is conceptual, it shows what type and scale of development is under active consideration by the Haslams (AoDK).

The existing landfill footprint on which Cleveland Browns Stadium is built may not be able to support the added weight either. Historians note that Cleveland Browns Stadium was built on the foundations of the 1931-built Municipal Stadium, and that foundation reportedly consisted of driving utility poles into the landfill of reclaimed lake bed. Expanding the stadium and its concourses outward will likely require additional foundations to support the weight. However, no dome or even a retractable roof is apparently being considered due to the expense and additional weight, the sources said.

Despite the team’s denials, sources reiterate that the Browns still prefer a new stadium with a retractable roof because of the many more events that it can host and provide revenues to proposed new restaurants, shops and hotels surrounding businesses. Events could include college basketball’s Final Four, Big Ten and Mid-American Conference football, soccer and basketball games, visiting National Hockey League and Major League Soccer games, national soccer team friendlies, concerts held year-round and more.

However, a source said the “impasse” between the Haslams and Bibb Administration reportedly got salty enough at one point that the Haslams were prepared to bypass the administration, seek help from City Council and even support City Council President Blaine Griffin in the next mayoral election in 2025 in order to get a new stadium. The Haslams backed off that threat because they need mayoral administrative support to achieve significant progress in getting a new or renovated stadium before 2025, the source added. That backing off apparently occurred before NEOtrans wrote its last article on the subject. A spokesman for the Haslams, Bibb’s Chief of Staff Bradford Davy and Griffin denied the allegations of an impasse, as previously noted.

“All of our work over the past year has been focused on the renovation of FirstEnergy Stadium,” said Peter John-Baptiste, senior vice president of communications for the Browns and Haslam Sports Group. “All of our conversations with the mayor have been supportive and geared toward exploring a path that is beneficial to the city, community and the region.”

“The Bibb administration is committed to working with the Haslam Sports Group in good faith to ensure that the Cleveland Browns continue to play home games in the City of Cleveland,” according to an official statement from the administration.

“I haven’t talked to anyone about the Browns’ stadium or anything political,” Griffin told NEOtrans.


Low-rise buildings are envisioned north of the stadium because they are in the flight path for aircraft approaching and departing Burke Lakefront Airport, which reportedly will soon see the addition of new hangars for aircraft serving downtown employers (AoDK).

Other factors coming in to play with the upcoming announcement(s) include the advancement of a “land bridge” linking the grassy downtown malls atop the Huntington Convention Center of Cleveland with North Coast Harbor. While the land bridge over the busy railroad tracks has been touted as a way to improve the physical and psychological connection between downtown and the lakefront, which currently are linked only by two noisy, windswept, pedestrian-unfriendly streets, it ultimately will be a huge parking garage with a green roof and a transit center in the basement.


This structure is the type of project to be financed by the new North Coast Development Authority that will be introduced to Cleveland City Council next week. Detailed discussions between the city and financiers are well underway for the land bridge, a source said. In addition to serving stadium visitors and the convention center, the number of parking spaces will also satisfy the parking requirements of private lenders who are being asked to help finance adjacent high-rise apartment buildings and mixed-use structures. And the parking in this land bridge will allow existing stadium parking lots north and west of the stadium to be developed with lower-rise structures below the paths of aircraft approaching and departing Burke Lakefront Airport. Under the Browns current lease with the city, the city is required to provide a minimum number of parking spaces for stadium events.

Before the entire land bridge can be built, the Shoreway and its rising, intrusive bridges must be converted to a surface-level boulevard intersecting with East 9th and West 3rd streets. An alternatives analysis is nearing completion for this project to determine what alignment should be the subject of detailed design and engineering which will take another year. That would be followed by a year of demolition of the existing Shoreway bridges over West 3rd and the railroad tracks, and East 9th’s bridge over the Shoreway, plus a year or more for construction of the new boulevard. This demolition and construction work is likely to coincide with the rebuilding of Cleveland Browns Stadium.

“There’s a lot of infrastructure that has to go into connecting downtown, which is the first thing that has to happen,” Jimmy Haslam said recently. “We’ve got to connect downtown to the waterfront, right? Everybody knows that. So you’ve got to relocate the highway … I do think the city, the county and the state are working together well, but there’s a lot of hoops to jump through.”

END
Originally Posted by Milk Man
Would not surprise me if the Browns played their games at Ohio Stadium during renovations. Similar to what the Vikings did in sharing the stadium with the University of Minnesota when the Vikings stadium was being built.

The Haslams have wanted to capture the Columbus market for awhile.

I could get on board with this.
© DawgTalkers.net