Brook Park stadium rendering confirmed real

Northward-looking rendering of Cleveland Browns’ proposed domed stadium in Brook Park. This image was brightened up a bit from the original so that more ground-level details could be seen (anonymous). CLICK IMAGES TO ENLARGE THEM.

Rendering shows stadium-area development

NEOtrans has secured a copy of a rendering showing the proposed multipurpose domed stadium sought by the owner of the Cleveland Browns football team in the Cleveland suburb of Brook Park. NEOtrans has confirmed from two of its best stadium sources that the rendering is real. The sources were upset at whoever leaked the rendering.

“It is 100 percent real,” said one of the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

“How the f— did you get that?” asked the other source.

NEOtrans sent an e-mail with the rendering as an attachment, asking for confirmation as to its authenticity, to Peter John-Baptiste, chief communications officer of the Browns and the Haslam Sports Group. Someone has opened the e-mail but not yet responded to it; this article will be updated if and when he does.

The rendering has a northward-looking view with Cleveland Hopkins International Airport visible at left and Downtown Cleveland seen in the distance. The stadium has an angular roof with clear views to the sky above, similar to Minneapolis’ US Bank Stadium — home of the National Football League Minnesota Vikings. NEOtrans has previously reported that the Browns were very impressed by Minneapolis’ stadium.

Not only does the angular skyroof of Minneapolis’ US Bank Stadium look similar to the Cleveland Browns’ proposed stadium in Brook Park, but the lighting, coloring and even the fireworks do too (HKS).

The view in the rendering NEOtrans has obtained looks down a new landscaped boulevard that could be built northeastward from Snow Road into the 176-acre stadium-environment. An affiliate of the Haslam Sports Group, owners of the Browns, has a purchase agreement to buy the site, first reported by NEOtrans in February.

There are additional venues on the site, both public and private including large, open-air plazas, pavilions, and several 10- to 14-story residential and/or hotel structures at the southwest portion of the site, near the Red Line rail transit to downtown.

Although ground-floor uses in the proposed buildings are not identified in the rendering, they appear to be very similar to retail/restaurant spaces in other residential buildings of comparable design in the Greater Cleveland area. There are also some rooftop amenity spaces on low-rise extensions of those buildings.

Large surface parking lots with extensive tree coverage are visible at the southeast section of the site closest to Snow Road and Interstate 71. There is an interchange between Snow and I-71 that will likely figure prominently in the development of the stadium, if that’s what owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam decide to go with.

This unofficial, speculative site plan actually has some similarities with the the rendering that NEOtrans has obtained. It includes surface parking lots to the southeast portion of the site and development to the west of a new domed stadium (Noah Belli).

The Haslams are weighing two stadium sites. One is a roughly $1.2 billion renovation of the existing 1999-built Cleveland Browns Stadium on Downtown Cleveland’s lakefront. The other is an approximately $2.5 billion new-construction domed stadium in Brook Park.

For either stadium option, the Browns are asking for public-sector financing to pay about half of the cost of the stadium. Such financing could use tax revenue streams generated by the stadium — income taxes from stadium workers, staff and players, property taxes from new structures but not from the improved land, admissions taxes, bed taxes and other revenues.

State funding is also being sought. Last week, representatives of the Browns invited state lawmakers to view a presentation and ask questions about the proposed new Brook Park stadium and downtown stadium renovation options. The meeting was held April 22 in Downtown Columbus.

In an April 29th phone interview, John-Baptiste declined to refute stadium funding sources, cost estimates or potential cost-sharing scenarios reported in this article. When asked when the public can see more renderings for both stadium options, John-Baptiste answered simply, “Soon.”


Subscribe to NEOtrans news

Stay informed about the latest local economic trends

Scroll to Top