Design & Development

Browns confirm focus on Brook Park stadium vision

Featured image credit: HKS Architects/Cleveland Browns

The Cleveland Browns have signalled their intention to pursue a move to a new $2.4bn (£1.84bn/€2.21bn) domed stadium in Brook Park, a decision Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb has slammed as “driven by a desire to maximise profits rather than positive impact”.

Both parties issued lengthy statements yesterday (Thursday) on the subject of the NFL franchise’s long-term stadium future. The Browns have been exploring the prospect of building a new venue or renovating Huntington Bank Field since 2017 as their lease at their current home expires in 2028.

In August, the Browns issued a first look at a potential future home in Brook Park, a city in Cuyahoga County located around nine miles southwest of the team’s current home in Downtown Cleveland.

This came just days after the City of Cleveland made its first official move over the Browns’ stadium future by outlining a $461m funding contribution towards a redevelopment of Huntington Bank Field.

The Browns have called the 67,431-seat stadium home since it opened in 1999 and a proposed 30-year lease arrangement had been on the table that the City stated would provide the team with a “dramatically transformed facility that will serve the region for decades”.

Such a redevelopment was expected to cost in the region of $1bn, but Browns owners Dee and Jimmy Haslam, of Haslam Sports Group (HSG), have now signalled their intent to pursue a move away.

Browns set out their stall

In a statement, the Haslams said: “Our stadium planning process started in 2017 and as Mayor Bibb mentioned today (Thursday), for the last two years, we have had positive, productive, and collaborative dialogue with the Mayor and his staff, working together to find the optimal long-term solution for our stadium.

“We pursued many possibilities, with our initial focus on renovating the current stadium and engaged design, construction and engineering experts to develop a plan to do so. We also explored building a new stadium on multiple sites, both within and outside of Cleveland.

“We’ve learned through our exhaustive work that renovating our current stadium will simply not solve many operational issues and would be a short-term approach. With more time to reflect, we have also realised that without a dome, we will not attract the type of large-scale events and year-round activity to justify the magnitude of this public-private partnership.

“The transformational economic opportunities created by a dome far outweigh what a renovated stadium could produce with around 10 events per year.

“In the spirit of exhausting all downtown options and continuing to work in good faith with the Mayor, when he announced his efforts to potentially make Burke available for development last month, we engaged in further diligence with the city and County Executive (Chris) Ronayne’s staff regarding a potential dome stadium on Burke.

“The significant design, construction, geotechnical and environmental challenges were again apparent. Our work reinforced that despite the City, County and our team doing their best to make the economics work, building a stadium on the Burke property is cost prohibitive and not feasible, especially with no certainty regarding potential timing of closure of the Airport.

“We have communicated to the Mayor and his team at every step of the process regarding our mutual efforts to keep the stadium downtown and we conveyed to them yesterday, our most impactful investment for our region is to focus on making a dome stadium and adjacent development in Brook Park a reality.

“With the funding mechanisms we continue to work on, this stadium will not use existing taxpayer-funded streams that would divert resources from other more pressing needs. Instead, the over $2bn private investment, together with the public investment, will create a major economic development project that will drive the activity necessary to pay the public bond debt service through future project-generated and Browns-generated revenue.

“A solution like this will be transformative not only for Cleveland and Northeast Ohio, but also the entire state of Ohio from the resulting events, tourism, and job creation. Additionally, moving the current stadium will allow the city and region’s collective vision for the Cleveland lakefront to be optimally realised, and downtown will benefit from the major events the Brook Park dome brings to the region.”

The Haslams maintained that Cleveland and Northeast Ohio are the “fabric of the Browns”, adding “that will always be the case”. However, they added: “At the same time, it is critical that we remain committed to the best long-term, sustainable solution for our stadium and to providing the world-class dome experience our fans deserve. We are confident that the Brook Park project will significantly benefit the Northeast Ohio region for generations to come.”

A “profoundly disheartening” choice

In response, Bibb outlined his determination to keep the Browns downtown, while also questioning the team’s motivations for the move to Brook Park. The financing of a new $2.4bn stadium is also unclear at this time.

Cuyahoga County’s Ronayne and Council President Pernel Jones Jr. rejected the option of county funding back in August, stating county subsidies for a Brook Park stadium do not make fiscal sense for residents or taxpayers. Ronayne doubled down on this stance yesterday, telling Cleveland.com: “Browns stadium should remain downtown.”

In his statement, Bibb said: “We can see and feel that our downtown is thriving, our vision for redeveloping the lakefront is becoming reality, and more and more businesses are choosing to invest in our city. The Haslams’ choice to move the team away from this progress is frustrating and profoundly disheartening.

“Over the past two years, this administration made relentless efforts to craft solutions that advance both the HSG’s objectives and the long-term interests of our residents and the broader community. We put forth a fiscally responsible yet aggressive financial package – larger than any other financial package offered for a sports facility in Cleveland to renovate the existing stadium.  

“When the Haslams shifted course and abandoned their renovation plans, we pivoted to explore options for a new stadium and offered to make a portion of Burke Lakefront Airport available to the team for redevelopment to include a new domed stadium and adjacent development, comparable – arguably better – than the vision the Haslam Sports Group proposed for Brook Park. However, the organisation was not interested in pursuing this option.  

“We have been working earnestly to meet the HSG’s needs while staying true to our commitment to the broader interests of the community. We’ve been transparent with the Haslams about what we were willing to do—and what we were not willing to do. Yes, the Browns and our visitors matter. But the well-being of the people who live here will always come first. That is our most important priority, and it is the one we must never compromise.

“As mayor, I will always prioritise the needs of our residents and businesses. The Haslam Sports Group may want a roof over their heads, but my responsibility is to ensure that Cleveland residents have a roof over theirs.

“I am deeply disappointed that, despite our exhaustive efforts, the Haslam Sports Group is choosing to pursue a move to Brook Park. This is a deliberate choice—one driven by a desire to maximise profits rather than positive impact.

“They had the opportunity to reinvest in Cleveland, transform the current stadium into a world-class facility, enhance the fan experience, and remain highly profitable. We put those options on the table in good faith. Unfortunately, that was not enough.”

Bibb outlined his belief that HSG’s proposal to build a new domed stadium in Brook Park will undoubtedly damage the city, county, and region in a multitude of ways. However, he maintained “our door is not closed”, adding he is ready to re-engage with HSG if the Brook Park option does not prove viable.