Author Topic: Cleveland: FirstEnergy Stadium renovations, changes (Read 26133 times)

DaninDC · « **Reply #35 on:** May 15, 2006, 02:14:13 AM »

Quote

Cleveland City Councilman Mike Polensek said he'll ask his City Council colleagues tonight to support a resolution urging the NFL to consider Cleveland as the site of the 50th Anniversary Super Bowl in 2016. It will also state that the city is considering (though many say it is the longest of long shots) the possibility of putting a roof on Browns Stadium to accommodate a Super Bowl. Polensek says a copy of the resolution will be sent to the NFL.

Fantastic. If this is at the top of Polensek's agenda, then that means all the other problems must have been solved. Congratulations, Cleveland!

Paul in Cleveland · « **Reply #36 on:** May 15, 2006, 02:31:55 AM »

I was just in Kansas City on Friday, and they had an interesting column on the whole economic impact thing in the Kansas City Star ...

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/sports/14558762.htm

Detroit still waiting for Super Bowl economic impact
JEFFREY FLANAGAN
The Kansas City Star

You’ve probably seen numerous projections about how much economic impact a Super Bowl has on its host city. Those estimates range anywhere from $200 million to $400 million. Apparently, Detroit and the state of Michigan are still waiting for that economic impact from the most recent Super Bowl.

According to the Detroit Free Press, Michigan’s state sales tax receipts for February and March — the two months when Super Bowl-related sales would have been reported — showed just a 2-percent gain from the receipts from the previous year. That amounts to a paltry $20 million or so.

And statewide use-tax revenues from hotels were up just 0.5 percent from the previous year. Anyone still think we need that rolling roof for a promised Super Bowl?

“I’m really not an economist, so I’m not sure how to analyze those figures,” Chiefs chairman of the board Jack Steadman said by phone. “But one thing to keep in mind is that the rolling roof isn’t just solely about the Super Bowl. We’re trying to create a venue that would be available 365 days a year, one of the largest indoor venues in the world. It’s not entirely about one event.”

Steadman also suggested that the Super Bowl has intangible effects other than economic. “I know that the Super Bowl brought that region and the city of Detroit together again,” Steadman said. “There were a lot of problems in that regard before the Super Bowl came.

“And you can’t help but wonder what a Super Bowl might do for state-line cooperation here.” The bottom line, Steadman said, is that there are ample reasons to go after a Super Bowl. “I know that there are cities lined up all over the country trying to get one,” he said. “And we’re lucky enough, because of Lamar Hunt, to have been promised one. And if we get one, we think we can certainly get two by 2030.”

Redbeard1969 · « **Reply #37 on:** May 15, 2006, 05:08:48 AM »

I'm sorry, I just think it's pie-in-the-sky to get those types of activities for a domed-over Cleveland Browns Stadium, and if anyone thinks that the revenue from those "hoped for" events and activities will offset the massive costs of roofing over the stadium (and again, those costs WILL go up as more feasibility and engineering studies/plans are drawn up), I don't think that the hard numbers bear it out. Sure, go ahead and do the studies (who pays for them?) and see what comes up, but it just doesn't seem that Indianapolis, Minneapolis and Detroit really maximize the use of their domed stadiums, and at least according to the article above, don't see much value in hosting the Super Bowl, other than it makes everyone feel good, like their city is a major deal.

And I really have to wonder ... is covering the stadium and trying to get a Super Bowl really worth the cost, because in the end, it's more about civic self-esteem than about really increasing the quality of life in the city or increasing economic viability.

freethink · « **Reply #38 on:** May 15, 2006, 02:57:01 PM »

This is an easy decision. Just ask yourself-does this project make us more competitive as a region when trying to lure events to Cleveland? Your only answer can be Yes. Over the years I have seen so many different projects talked about and re-talked about, until they were talked to death. So many negative attitudes always speaking the loudest. If you believe in this project do your best to spread the positive words about it and don't let those who live in their doom and gloom world continue to be the stronger voice. And GO CAVS!

Mov2Ohio · « **Reply #39 on:** May 15, 2006, 05:04:14 PM »

Well if they do go ahead with this the city and all of the counterpart municipalities in the region should get behind this, a new convention center (somehow linking the stadium and convention facility) and expanding and renovationg the airport. Then we will have something that could provide a prolonged economic boost to the area even if we never get a superbowl.

MyTwoSense · « **Reply #40 on:** May 15, 2006, 11:20:51 PM »

Quote from: Redbeard1969 on May 15, 2006, 05:08:48 AM

I'm sorry, I just think it's pie-in-the-sky to get those types of activities for a domed-over Cleveland Browns Stadium, and if anyone thinks that the revenue from those "hoped for" events and activities will offset the massive costs of roofing over the stadium (and again, those costs WILL go up as more feasibility and engineering studies/plans are drawn up), I don't think that the hard numbers bear it out. Sure, go ahead and do the studies (who pays for them?) and see what comes up, but it just doesn't seem that Indianapolis, Minneapolis and Detroit really maximize the use of their domed stadiums, and at least according to the article above, don't see much value in hosting the Super Bowl, other than it makes everyone feel good, like their city is a major deal.

And I really have to wonder ... is covering the stadium and trying to get a Super Bowl really worth the cost, because in the end, it's more about civic self-esteem than about really increasing the quality of life in the city or increasing economic viability.

I think some people miss the point. this is NOT about the superbowl or about just covering the stadium. its about correcting a problem and tying the stadium into the current convention center to make various venues work together.

I think that we have to get past people think this is a "magic wand" and again....look at the bigger picture

musky · « **Reply #41 on:** May 16, 2006, 12:51:09 AM »

Quote

ts about correcting a problem and tying the stadium into the current convention center to make various venues work together.

Of course, that will not matter if the convention center no longer exists in the current location... but who am I kidding, that decision may never come.

gotribe · « **Reply #42 on:** May 16, 2006, 02:24:21 AM »

Quote

I think some people miss the point. this is NOT about the superbowl or about just covering the stadium. its about correcting a problem and tying the stadium into the current convention center to make various venues work together.

I think that we have to get past people think this is a "magic wand" and again....look at the bigger picture

Exactly. BVasically, they have figured out that building such a large structure right on the lake that only gets used 8 times a year is not very practical. End of Story. It really isn't just about the Superbowl.

DaninDC · « **Reply #43 on:** May 16, 2006, 02:32:08 AM »

But even after the $90 million is spent on a roof, there's no guarantee that the building will be used any more frequently than it currently is. That is the point of contention here. It's a blind bet of a lot of money, and the odds of a payout are very low. Ask Detroiters how often Ford Field gets used.

If private businessmen want to build this roof, fine. The public coffers have other needs to address at this time.

gotribe · « **Reply #44 on:** May 16, 2006, 03:09:11 AM »

^There is no guarantee in anything in development. That is why it is considered a "risky business". There is no guarantee your homes will sell, or your offices will lease etc. You really do not seem happy about anything in Cleveland however. I don't know what you want the private investors to do.

DaninDC · « **Reply #45 on:** May 16, 2006, 03:36:03 AM »

There is no such thing as a guarantee, but there is such a thing as minimizing risk. You don't just throw money at a problem and hope for the best. Cleveland has been doing that for the past 20 years, and the results speak for themselves. This is why real estate developers typically perform market studies before undertaking a project. A lot of people seem to be guessing that the building will be used more--where is the market for such a facility? A good start would be to examine existing convention center / dome setups in St. Louis and Atlanta. Has anyone done that yet???

What I want private investors to do is to pay for this thing themselves, if they want/need it so badly. If this silly roof is going to lead to increased profits and an improved economy as claimed, wouldn't that lead one to believe that public money is unnecessary for this?

I'm not happy about much in Cleveland, because it's the same stupid short-sighted bullsh!t ideas day-in and day-out. All you have to do is look elsewhere once in a while to see what makes a city work. Cleveland would rather try the same failed ideas over and over again, though, and the result is the current "urban theme park" that resides on Lake Erie.

MyTwoSense · « **Reply #46 on:** May 16, 2006, 07:14:52 AM »

I think this could be a great project if executed properly. we'd get more use of the stadium, we'd have the same amount of better of convention space that the IX center currently has in a centralized location, a hotel and much needed amenities. The IX center goes away and the airport can expand to the best of its abilities.

Even if there is not "covering" installed, the project should stil move forward.

urbanlife · « **Reply #47 on:** May 16, 2006, 07:30:44 AM »

everyone seems to agree that the stadium needs to be used more.

i'd like to see some intermediate steps to begin this realization, NOW, while the dome discussion can continue. there have been numerous problems with using the stadium for other events - the browns don't like it during the season, it doesn't have a track, to open the stadium at all (even just the lower level) requires $$ that most smaller events (high school sports, community events) can not afford.

i'd like to see the numbers on the table. if we can show increased use from 8 to 10 times a year, to 20 times a year without a dome, then i think the dome analysis comes in to show how with expanded convention center, dome, etc., there could be 30 events a year, and oh by the way, perhaps 1 or 2 big events (superbowl, NCAA).

why can't we start using the stadium this summer? maybe to fully utilize the convention aspects, the field needs covered, but there should be some other events that we can start putting here.

CleveChiNola · « **Reply #48 on:** May 16, 2006, 10:51:31 AM »

I think cities need to balance between bold large projects, and fostering smaller, organic growth. IMHO I think Cleveland still needs to focus on knitting together some to the large project completed last decade, including the stadium.

Is it a good investment of money? Probably, but I think it could become a distraction right now. I think the city should continue to work toward building the neighborhoods around the big attractions. Gateway is going great, Euclid Ave is seemingly on track, now we have to look towards the Flats, lakefront (Pesht), Scranton Penn and University Circle.

Once that is underway, more residents are in the city, along with associated retail, then the city should start thinking big once again. A newly remodeled convention center with this stadium roof, moving the port operations west and moving Burke somewhere else are three big projects I would love to see next.

freethink · « **Reply #49 on:** May 16, 2006, 02:57:13 PM »

And something else to consider from a design standpoint. To me any thing that can be done to somehow diffuse the look of 70 thousand bright orange seats should be done. I mean does this city have a review panel or were they off the day they decided to approve those seats. And not only did they approve the orange seats-they wrapped the stadium in green tinted glass. Orange and green-only in Cleveland.

Map Boy · « **Reply #50 on:** May 17, 2006, 01:47:39 AM »

Anyone listening to WCPN right now? They've got Bob Corna, Mike Polensek and Tony Brancatelli on talking about the idea, money, economic impact, etc... it's almost over, though!

3231 · « **Reply #51 on:** May 17, 2006, 01:52:00 AM »

I wish that I could have heard it. I have stayed away from this conversation because I feel that there are so many other variables that would make this project either a great idea or a stupid one.

Map Boy · « **Reply #52 on:** May 17, 2006, 01:58:05 AM »

Well, basically every caller (including County Commissioner Hagan) has said that public money should not be spent on this...the people won't go for it...corporate welfare...what about the schools...etc.etc.etc. Every time, the three respondents have said, "we're just talking about what's possible and we don't want to use any public funds." They think that financing it will be the "easiest" part. So, what's the problem? If it's going to be paid for with private money, then what's the debate? Well, like they said, this is the beginning of the discussion and we need to make sure along the way that no public dollars are spent on this project. If it's so easy, then let's push it forward and see the benefits at no additional cost to the people of Cleveland and Cuyahoga County. That's basically what I got out of the conversation...

3231 · « **Reply #53 on:** May 17, 2006, 02:16:00 AM »

Quote from: Mister Good Day on May 17, 2006, 01:58:05 AM

Well, basically every caller (including County Commissioner Hagan) has said that public money should not be spent on this...the people won't go for it...corporate welfare...what about the schools...etc.etc.etc. Every time, the three respondents have said, "we're just talking about what's possible and we don't want to use any public funds." They think that financing it will be the "easiest" part. So, what's the problem? If it's going to be paid for with private money, then what's the debate? Well, like they said, this is the beginning of the discussion and we need to make sure along the way that no public dollars are spent on this project. If it's so easy, then let's push it forward and see the benefits at no additional cost to the people of Cleveland and Cuyahoga County. That's basically what I got out of the conversation...

We should build a dome over the schools!

Map Boy · « **Reply #54 on:** May 17, 2006, 02:22:20 AM »

how about a dome of wifi? wait, he have that! still, I like the way you think wimwar...

MyTwoSense · « **Reply #55 on:** May 17, 2006, 04:06:27 AM »

Quote from: wimwar on May 17, 2006, 02:16:00 AM

We should build a dome over the schools!

lovie.....Don't forget about the olympic sized pool and polo grounds! No school is complete without country club sports!

urbanlife · « **Reply #56 on:** May 17, 2006, 06:07:46 AM »

here is a link to the audio from the broadcast this morning. i still think the best point being brought up is that the stadium is not used for anything now, regardless of the weather.

http://www.wcpn.org/podcast/audio/2006/05/0517nine.mp3

mrnyc · « **Reply #57 on:** May 20, 2006, 01:54:50 AM »

this project needs to be thought about and tied into a decision of the fate of the old convention center and the ix center at the airport.

if they decide to renovate the old cc, best choice imo, then covering the stadium is a plan worth looking into as the two can be tied together. and let's not forget or minimize that a spinoff of that choice is that it would speed the closing of the ix center and airport expansion plans.

if forest city and tc gets a brand new cc instead, then i dk if this scheme has legs. it still might. its worth looking into as an option, esp if the big picture of the ix/airport is in the mix.

freethink · « **Reply #58 on:** May 20, 2006, 02:52:38 AM »

One of the things I like about Corna is his knowledege and use of building materials that are not mainstream. Stonebridge will use a lighter-steel constuction which is vey cool. The proposed stadium roof would be made of a material call Foiltec. The more I think about this project, I agree it should be done. This could be a good time for Cleveland over the next 5-10 years. Hopefully the new mayor has the same vision for this city that we all share.
Check out this link on Foiltec it is very cool stuff. http://www.vector-foiltec.com/vector.htm

musky · « **Reply #59 on:** May 20, 2006, 11:10:12 AM »

***Overheard at the end of the Planning Commission Meeting***
Steve Litt was at the meeting. Tom Breckenridge introduced him to Corna.
As I was leaving, Steve told congratulated him and told him before he moves much more on promoting this, he should find out if any proposed towers holding up the retractable roof will fall within the glide path of Burke.

I just though that was interesting, and diffidently something that needs to be considered since the flight path is why the R&R Hall of Fame, and the new wind turbine at the GLSC are the heights they are.

musky · « **Reply #60 on:** May 26, 2006, 08:46:48 AM »

Oh, looky there.
It's actually used a tad bit more then ten times a year.

From the PD

Quote

Tonight: U.S. vs. Venezuela
Friday, May 26, 2006

Where/When: Cleveland Browns Stadium, 7 p.m., gates open at 5:30 p.m.

Tickets: Available, ranging from $20 to $150.

TV: ESPN2

mrnyc · « **Reply #61 on:** May 26, 2006, 08:57:48 AM »

Quote from: musky on May 26, 2006, 08:46:48 AM

Oh, looky there.
It's actually used a tad bit more then ten times a year.

From the PD
Quote
Tonight: U.S. vs. Venezuela
Friday, May 26, 2006

Where/When: Cleveland Browns Stadium, 7 p.m., gates open at 5:30 p.m.

Tickets: Available, ranging from $20 to $150.

TV: ESPN2

musky nice scoop, but i was going to say the same thing about your use of "the crawl feature" in your post above that one -- its actually used more than ten times a year! lol!

musky · « **Reply #62 on:** May 26, 2006, 10:20:26 AM »

What about this one?

Actually, I'm still learning how a lot of these little extras work.
I could probably just go through the help/beginners section for that, but I like the trial and error method.

My 8yr old son is going to the soccer game tonight with his grandparents. I tried to get him to take the camera, but he did not want to.

musky · « **Reply #63 on:** June 07, 2006, 01:05:23 AM »

From the Sun News' KJP - thank you for your work.

Anybody have suggestions on who specifically should be on the committee?

Quote

Committee may study stadium lid
Thursday, June 01, 2006
By Ken Prendergast
Brooklyn Sun Journal

CLEVELAND _ A study committee may be formed soon to review the merits of putting a retractable roof on Cleveland Browns Stadium. At its last meeting, Cleveland City Council's Planning Committee recommended creating the study group, likely to be comprised of city, county and Browns representatives.

The committee would identify costs of adding the roof and look at the viability of revenue sources to cover the cost. A preliminary cost of $70 million to $90 million was estimated by developer and architect Bob Corna. He is advocating the retractable roof along with a number of council persons, led by Ward 11's Mike Polensek.

Corna said some unconventional revenue sources should be considered, such as using a dot-matrix advertising overlay on the roof, large enough to be seen from a hovering blimp. The material could be similar to those that wrap buses in an advertisement while allowing passengers to see out the covered windows.

Additional events at a year-round stadium would generate more revenues from concessions, parking and admissions taxes. Another is naming rights. Corna referred to Citizens Bank recently agreeing to pay $95 million over 25 years for naming rights to the Philadelphia Phillies' baseball park.

That could pay for the roof right there, he said.

Corna also noted that increased loge and season ticket prices, if additional events are included as part of the package, might be feasible. There are 270 loges at Browns Stadium, costing about $170,000 per year. If that were increased by $10,000 each, or $2.7 million total, that could leverage a $40 million construction bond.

What is it worth to that ticket holder if you guarantee a Super Bowl and an NCAA final? Corna asked. There could be other events included. It's not just about football. In the loges, each of these companies could hold catered business meetings. Imagine 270 meeting spaces.

He said a decision whether to put a retractable roof on the stadium could influence where the convention center will be in the future. The existing convention center is across the Shoreway and lakefront tracks from the stadium. One city proposal would expand it northward, above the highway and tracks, to near the stadium. The other location being considered is a new site at Tower City Center.

A design issue to be considered is whether towers needed to support the retractable roof would be too tall for planes approaching Burke Lakefront Airport. Corna said he suspects it won't be a problem, but said the clearance issue will be looked at by the study group.

musky · « **Reply #64 on:** June 08, 2006, 03:56:36 PM »

Anyone wanna bet if there is actually any retractable roof construction going on when this game happens?

Quote

OSU football to play in Cleveland in '09

10:21 a.m.

From staff reports

Ohio State and Toledo have signed an agreement to play a football game at Cleveland Browns Stadium in 2009.

OSU athletic director Gene Smith said today that the Buckeyes and Toledo are locked in on a two-game series. The second game will be held in Columbus in 2011, Smith said.

The last time Ohio State played a game in Cleveland was 1991, when the Buckeyes stopped Northwestern, 34-3, at Municipal Stadium.

Smith is in Cleveland today to announce the start of a men’s basketball series with Cleveland State that will start in the 2007-08 season.

sports@plaind.com

UncleRando · « **Reply #65 on:** June 09, 2006, 02:29:24 AM »

I'll bet that it never happens....sorry

mrnyc · « **Reply #66 on:** June 09, 2006, 02:50:09 AM »

^the osu-toledo game or the roof?

if you mean the roof i agree. i think eventually forest city is going to get a new cc on their tc area property and that will put an end to it.

too bad, i'd prefer the old cc get renovated and the stadium roof given consideration.

we'll see, but don't hold your breath nothing will be decided anytime soon.

freethink · « **Reply #67 on:** June 12, 2006, 03:04:08 AM »

from today's PD...

Don't count on the grand idea of a retractable roof on Cleveland Browns Stadium becoming a reality. Maureen Harper, communications director for Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson, said the mayor has no intention of forming an exploratory committee to examine the feasibility, an idea championed by Councilman Mike Polensek. Council President Martin J. Sweeney said he, too, had no plans to form an exploratory committee for council.

...IDIOTS

KJP · « **Reply #68 on:** June 12, 2006, 05:01:08 AM »

Sounds like Forest City Enterprises is asserting itself.

X · « **Reply #69 on:** June 12, 2006, 05:16:24 AM »

It's disappointing that he closed this idea down without discussion. It was more disappointing when he closed down the idea of the Southern Alignment for the Innerbelt before the independent study of the alignment that ODOT promised us was done. I don't really know how I feel about Jackson at this point. I don't like his planning related decisions. I'll be pissed if the CC ends up at Tower City. That will be a horrible location for it.

News:

Author Topic: Cleveland: FirstEnergy Stadium renovations, changes (Read 26133 times)