By Daniel J. McGraw
There are times when Mark Twain was right, that numbers are lies and damn lies and all that, but there are others times when the numbers line up so pointedly that they connect the dots in a way that no verbal argument ever could.
I’m speaking of Burke Lakefront Airport in downtown Cleveland. About a year ago, we wrote in this fairly new magazine that keeping Burke open was kind of stupid. United Airlines had announced it was de-hubbing its operations at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, and I raised the idea that perhaps 450 acres of lakefront property in downtown Cleveland might be better used as something besides an underutilized airport. You know, housing or parks or offices or a combination of all of those.
And the major point was that Hopkins would have less flights with United cancelling so many, so Burke was no longer needed. And if it was no longer needed, why not repurpose Burke as a property that takes advantage of its location on the water?
The naysayers immediately came out of the woodwork saying I had no idea how aviation works, and the major reason that Burke should not be closed is that the Federal Aviation Administration had designated Burke as a “reliever” airport for Hopkins. The FAA defines reliever as “airports designated by the FAA to relieve congestion at commercial service airports.” In other words, I was told repeatedly, if Burke closed, Hopkins would be so crowded with flights that it would cause big delays for the passengers flying in or out of Hopkins.
And this is where the numbers line up so completely, according to the FAA. In 2013 Hopkins had 181,340 flight operations. Last year, in the 2014 calendar year, with United moving many flights out of Hopkins, the number of flight operations dropped to 130,762. That is a loss of 50,578 flight operations from 2013 to 2014.
The number of operations out of Burke Lakefront Airport in 2014? 51,955.
So you could move all the flights that operated out of Burke to Hopkins and you would have the same number of flights that operated there in 2013. Actually, you wouldn’t have to move all the flights, because about 40 percent of the operations out of Burke are flight schools. So if you moved the 30,000 or so private aircraft operations from Burke to Hopkins, no one would notice. And the difference in time to get downtown if those planes using Burke had to use Hopkins would be about 20 minutes.
I know why some of the Cleveland leadership is against closing Burke, and it has nothing to do with flight operation statistics or the landfill the airport was built on or FAA rules that don’t make it easy to close any airports. The reason they are against even thinking about closing Burke is because it is a real physical sign that Cleveland is much smaller than it used to be, and it no longer needs some amenities that bigger cities have – such as a downtown airport just 12 miles from its main commercial airport, whose flight operations have dropped by about 60 percent since 2000.
[blocktext align=”right”]Why the leadership in Northeast Ohio cannot see this is maddening.[/blocktext]Why the leadership in Northeast Ohio cannot see this is maddening. Flight operations at the four airports in the area – Burke, Hopkins, Akron-Canton, and Cuyahoga County Airport – have all dropped by big numbers in the past decade or so. In 2000, those four airports had about 615,000 flights, including about 332,000 at Hopkins. Last year, those four combined for about 287,000 flights. That is a drop of more than 50 percent in about 15 years.
In other words, we have extra airport capacity in the region. So closing Burke would have little effect on overall airplane service infrastructure system.
The other reasons offered that Burke cannot be closed are even more idiotic than those who say it is still necessary as a reliever airport. The fact that it was built on landfill has caused some to claim that the land is toxic and can never be used for anything else. The facts are that 90 percent of it was built from clean fill (rocks and dirt from road construction projects from the 30s and 40s), and the EPA has done several studies that show Burke is in no way toxic. And proof that the land will support building on the fill are right next door in the forms of First Energy Stadium and the museums, which were built on the same fill.
(Another fallacy is that hospitals like the Cleveland Clinic need service at Burke to keep transplanted organs from becoming unusable due to time degeneration. Not true. For example, livers survive about 12 hours after being removed from a cadaver, so eight extra minutes from Hopkins to the Cleveland Clinic’s main campus is going to make little difference. Plus the hospitals have their own helicopter pads for immediate emergency care.)
The second excuse is that the FAA wouldn’t allow it to close. When people use this one, I wonder if they understand politics at all. The FAA has approved closure of airports through the years, and they were closed mainly because the local political leadership wanted them closed. The FAA has some rules – such as paying back what they invested in the airport, which in Burke’s case would be roughly $10 million – but they are a political entity that does what they are told in matters such as this.
Think of it this way. If Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson and Governor John Kasich and U.S. Senators Sherrod Brown and Rob Portman, along with member of Congress Marcia Fudge and Marcy Kaptur and David Joyce (and throw House Speaker John Boehner in there as well) told the FAA they wanted to close Burke based on the latest numbers of use and future use as prime lakefront property, would the FAA say no? Of course not.
As it stands now, Cleveland – which owns the airport property – doesn’t even want to consider closing Burke. The city has never done a study that shows the pros and cons of what happens if it does close (financial, environmental, urban density issues), only offering the lame excuse that the city has too many other projects on the table to be concerned with a project that would open up the lakefront downtown. Yes, I’ve heard over and over again, that Cleveland is so vibrant and growing that opening up Burke for development might cause all the other projects to cave in.
Here are the basic facts on what Cleveland would get out of closing Burke. The airport costs the city between $2 and $3 million a year to keep open, so not only could you pay the FAA the money you owe them in four years it was closed, you would clear out a deficit for a city that seems to have problems funding basic city services. The city also might get a windfall in what it gets per acre if it does put it on the market.
Some of that money from the land sale might be used to pay for developmental infrastructure costs to the city. The 450 acres would also be a blank canvas. Maybe parkland and marinas on the eastern end, and denser housing and offices near East 9th Street. Possibly a boardwalk near the shoreline, with mixed-use housing and retail and offices buildings. Public/private partnership and fill in your urban development buzzword here.
[blocktext align=”left”]But the key is that the land is owned by the city, and it can direct this project in any way it likes.[/blocktext]But the key is that the land is owned by the city, and it can direct this project in any way it likes. That is unheard of when talking about a parcel of land this size, because the major problem in doing big redevelopment projects in urban areas is the assembling of land. That part is done.
And it is crazy that the Cleveland leadership doesn’t see this unique opportunity in front of them. I have been searching for the past year for any other major city on the planet that has 450 acres of largely vacant land in its urban core, with more than 2 miles of shoreline on a body of water that is navigable by oceangoing vessels. If you think of one, let me know, but I’m pretty confident you won’t.
This will be a long-term process; it might be a decade before Cleveland starts seeing dirt being moved. But no private developers are going to come forward and lay out potential plans unless Cleveland lets the world know it is open for business. But they will come forward, because the availability of land like this is unique. There are certainly risks, but Cleveland needs to take risks if it is going to reverse some of the economic trends that have hurt it, and build on some of the foundations it is putting in place in the downtown area.
The first step is for Cleveland to no longer use the excuse that it cannot close Burke Lakefront Airport because it is needed as a reliever airport for Hopkins. The numbers say otherwise, with indisputable clarity.
Daniel J. McGraw is Senior Writer at Belt.
Support paywall free, independent Rust Belt journalism — and become part of a growing community — by becoming a member of Belt.
In general, a well-done argument. However, may I suggest looking at photographs of the construction of the old Cleveland Stadium (Jim Toman’s “Cleveland Stadium: Sixty Years of Memories” is an excellent resource). The stadium is not built upon fill, as Mr. McGraw indicates. In fact, a series of pilings were driven to the bedrock underneath Lake Erie. The pilings were capped together with concrete to form a base for the stadium to be built on. The new stadium rests upon the same pilings. Keep in mind that any large construction project would have to utilize similar techniques. Anecdotal stories from workers at Burke indicate that the buildings there do sink a bit in warm weather; apparently, doors can get jammed up a bit as the structures settle into the soft surface of the airport.
Matt, thanks for reading and commenting. I agree that building structures at Burke will not be as simple as building a four-bedroom house, say, in Strongsville. My problem is that the city uses that as an excuse for doing nothing without any studies. My conversations with building engineers is that — as you point out — driving down to bedrock for the foundation support allows virtually anything. But there are other engineering options that allow for a mulitude of building styles to be done without doing pylons down to bedrock and breaking the bank. Some engineers have said that the land closest to the Shoreway can handle taller structures than land closer to the lake. But again, the city has never taken a look at those issues, not have they looked at the pros and cons of closing it. They simply say it will always be an airport, and that’s it, no more questions.
The total lack of political will to even think about using that land as part of the larger push to revitalize downtown always seemed odd to me. You’d think that developers and the city council would be salivating to get their hands on it. I figure it is either a resistance to any kind of change brought on by decades of dealing with the general economic decline of the region (as you said), or that some very politically powerful people quietly keep it open for their own personal reasons.
I’m going with very powerful shadow political donors want it to stay for their own benefit. Perhaps we should start watching and tracking usage. I would also like to see the Cuyahoga County Administration building get booted from East 9th Street and shuttered to the outer rings of both East and West. The do not need to have prime real estate and should be shoring up eye sores and revitalizing other areas.
great stuff, dan.
cleveland needs to invest into a commuter rail system. One to the east side (Mentor) and one to the westside (Avon). Promotes longer day trips dowtown, after work drinks, night games, etc.
Yes, a park on the lake is nice. But you’re missing the larger argument. The number one priority for Cleveland is growing its economy with new/additional businesses and jobs. Burke is something that ATTRACTS business. Discounting for military, general aviation, and flight school operations, Burke is the 6th busiest airport in state (counting Cincinnati as part of Ohio, though its airport is in Kentucky). It serves a critical business need that supports the economy of the city and the region. Your argument is also based on the belief that that the capacity that United took out of Hopkins is not and won’t be replaced by other airlines, which in fact is not true at all. In fact, the adding of capacity by other carriers has already begun and is continuing.
A particular ‘falsehood’ in your article that must be addressed. You stated: “Flight operations at the four airports in the area – Burke, Hopkins, Akron-Canton, and Cuyahoga County Airport – have all dropped by big numbers in the past decade or so. In 2000, those four airports had about 615,000 flights, including about 332,000 at Hopkins. Last year, those four combined for about 287,000 flights. That is a drop of more than 50 percent in about 15 years. In other words, we have extra airport capacity in the region. So closing Burke would have little effect on overall airplane service infrastructure system.”
False—Cuyahoga County has much less field capacity than the other three airports. In fact, many businesses in the eastern suburbs that would love to fly their corporate flights out of the County Airport can’t and must use Burke. Remember, the runway at BKL is about 1,000 feet shorter than NY LaGuardia. County is a small airport. Akron-Canton is also not a ‘replacement’ for Burke. People who pay thousands of dollars for a business flight for, say a 40 minute flight from NY to Cleveland certainly are not going to want to then spend 60 minutes in a car to reach Downtown Cleveland. At best, you can make the argument that Hopkins can take some Burke traffic, but you can’t say Cuyahoga County or Akron Canton is a viable replacement for Burke.
And this was humorous: “This will be a long-term process; it might be a decade before Cleveland starts seeing dirt being moved. But no private developers are going to come forward and lay out potential plans unless Cleveland lets the world know it is open for business.” Yes, after the city destroys one of its best business assets.
Ultimately, your premise is one of defeat: “Cleveland will not grow again to be a mighty city and lets just deal with the loss and start deconstructing economic engines of the past.” Airports, in the global economy, are drivers of local economies. Though you make evident that you don’t realize this, but Burke does indeed play an essential role in Cleveland’s economy and the future prosperity of this city—and that, for those that understand this, perhaps they are the “naysayers” you cite in your article—is why the 6th busiest commercial airport in the state should not be closed. Closing Burke is irreversible and will cause irreparable harm to the city. If anything, it should be better leveraged than it is right now to grow the city.
If you want downtown lakefront property to develop without killing the city, then revive and lead the effort to move the port to E 55 and use that land as your downtown lakefront park. Now that was a plan that made sense. But don’t lobby for eliminating assets that help our economy grow.
Thanks very much for your comment, Thinking Illogically. I won’t refute all of your opinions because it would take way too much time and space. First, I don’t say “a park on the lake is nice,” because I don’t advocate for a park only. This is 450 acres. The city could do anything it wants (office, housing, retail, attractions, open space). Think of it this way: Cedar Polint is 365 acres, Cleveland State’s campus is 85. And you point out that the skies in Northeast Ohio are indeed crowded, and that Cuyahoga County Aiport is so filled up. Well, the the county airport had 65,000 flight operations in 2000 and had 29,000 last year. I realize not all flights out of Burke could be moved to county, but it is not a falsehood to say that CGF’s use has dropped in half. But the major point is this: when does the asset become obsolete in its current use? Do we use 450 acres of prime real estate in a way that is no longer very important or needed on so many levels? Or do we make a community decision that repurposing this property is better in the long run economically. With that comes some give-ups. I was asked by some people what would happen to the air show if Burke was closed. Well, maybe it would go away. But do you stop a big dowtown economic development project — one that would change the city in so mnay ways — because it is used for a flying exhibition for a weekend each summer? Do you give up such a project because a few private aircraft (and getting to be fewer each year) might have to use an airport 20 minutes away? And lastly, I have asked city business and political leaders for the past year to give me examples of businsses in the region who are here in part because of the proximity of an airport to downtown Cleveland. Businesses that think Burke is a game-changer in their thinking, and that Hopkins is too far away to use. Still waiting. But here is the argument I do hear: “We need to keep Burke open as an airport in case businesses might want to come here because of it.” That’s very illogical thinking. I come at it this way. Maybe businesses might come here if Cleveland had a kick-ass development on the lakefront that drew businesses to locate there, had public space that their employees and the rest of the populace could use, attractions that drew people to downtown, and created a vibrant huge space that other cities do not have. Urban living and urban attractions on the lake front. This is not eliminating an asset, it is creating a much better one. Closing Burke does not kill the city, as you put it; in fcat, it would breathe new life into Cleveland.. So do we leave it as an airport that is used less and less and whose flights can be easily absorbed at the other airports in the region, or do we look at using this land as an economic engine to jumpstart NE Ohio. Logical thinking says you explore the latter.
We have a discussion going on over at Urban Ohio so thought I would cross post my response to your essay here:
I’m all for freeing up lakefront land for development, but let’s face it–if we closed Burke it would take 75 years for developers to fill that space.
In the meantime, it’s a mistake for the city to not use it as an economic development tool. There is a brand new FBO going in, and the original terminal building sits quiet daily. Make this into a mixed-use jobs-creator:
1. Free landing fees for companies who put their HQ in downtown Cleveland.
2. Free landing fees for a regional upstart boutique airline who wants to service BKL (I’m thinking Porter Air with service to Toronto/Montreal/NYC).
3. Condo buildings in the current terminal parking lot, for those empty-nesters who own single engine private planes (an urban airpark…might be a first of it’s kind?)
4. Grants for aviation-related businesses to base at BKL.
5. Grants for an aviation-career related charter highschool (in the spirit of Aviation High).
5. A destination restaurant in the terminal building, complete with rooftop dining with 360 degree views of the lake and downtown.
Read more: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,9545.175.html#ixzz3RZrklpk9
In New York, Cornell University and others are spending $2 billion to build Cornell Tech, a special 12-acre campus devoted to the applied sciences aimed at improving New York’s position in the tech sector. It seems the evolving Cleveland has two things going for it besides medical facilities: that’s higher education and our position on the Great Lakes, home of one drop out of every five drops of fresh water in this world, increasingly important in a growing world threatened by environmental change. Why could’t Cleveland grab the lead on studies of water resources, particularly our own threatened Great Lakes? A major commitment at the site, something that someday could be what the Scripps Institute of Oceanography in San Diego would grow the economy, help the lake, help the Earth and least of all (because it really would be least of all) turn around that whole Mistake on the Lake thing. That’s what could be done at the lakefront. Here’s a architectural drawing at that campus on Roosevelt Island:
http://images.fastcompany.com/upload/Cornell%20Tech_Site_SectionPerspective_crSOM.jpg
Interesting. I’m not familiar with Cleveland, but is the airport connected to the rest of Cleveland with good transit? Cornell Tech is on an island with a subway station one stop from midtown Manhattan.
A park is a nice idea; it could really turn out well and look nice along the shore. But how much would people actually use it, since that land is cut off by the freeway?
Kyle, thanks for reading and commenting. Two ideas about your comment: 1) People keep mentioning using Burke as a park, like that is all you’d use that much land for. To use 450 acres for a park only would be as stupid as its current use as an airport. Someone mentioned to me that it should be used as a bird sanctuary. I answered, “What do you want to other 350 acres used for?” You can do all sorts of things with that much land, and change the landscape and the waterfont line and access to fit the retail/housing/office/park/boating/boardwalk/whatever-else-you-think-of plan; and 2) why would it be have to be cut off by a freeway? Bridges, exits, road resdesign, boulevard, intersections. Again, this is not limited by what’s there now. Open canvas. Recreate it to what you want it to be.
Does anybody know anybody who has ever taken a commercial flight out of Burke in their lifetime?
This argument is laughable. Close the damn thing and start creating jobs based on development. Preserve at least 75% of it for a park along the waterfront. Check out Grant park in Chicago, that’s economic development.
Dan, I have been turning people on to your article on Burke from last year. Thanks for the followup. I truly believe it is in his best political interest for Mayor Jackson to keep Burke open. Keep at it, and maybe someday we can see something happen. Thanks
The attitude of “we CAN’T close BKL” is one of the many things which will doom CLE to be a second-tier city in perpetuity. Another is the incessant political infighting which adds years to projects such as this. CLE, it seems, can’t get out of it’s own way. Worse…it doesn’t seem to WANT to.
Dan: Your argument against Burke being an indispensable airport is well made. The numbers don’t lie. My personal bias is we need every airport we’ve got cause they’re so hard to build today, and I expect air travel to continue to grow in importance in our economy. And don’t forget that Burke’s the only airport around that actually does not contribute to urban sprawl, so it’s got that going for it!
Seriously however, I’d like to point out a few other issues that are present at Burke that have contributed to the fact that no one has ever put forth a viable development plan for the site.
First, not only is the land cut off from the rest of downtown Cleveland by both freight and commuter train tracks and a ten lane highway, it is almost 90 feet below the grade at City Hall. This grade differential causes many problems, not the least of which is the expense of building sewage holding tanks and the necessary pumping capacity to get the waste stream up into the sewer system. The beautiful aerial photos of the Burke site that crop up into every article published on Burke don’t demonstrate this, and in fact create a false sense of calm and beauty when the reality of the site is that it is quite wind swept and barren.
Second, while it is true that most of the landfill at Burke is non-toxic, any substantial construction on Burke will include additional costs to build a secure foundation. It’s likely these costs will be substantial, especially for residential projects, which already operate on thin margins.
Both of these costs ripple through the financial models real estate brokers use to analyze opportunities like this and the end result is that a reasonable rate of return can not be obtained from the investment, given current market conditions.
If market conditions improved to the point where these costs could be recouped, both office and residential projects could be justified. But these price levels can’t be sustained until all other desirable parcels in downtown Cleveland are exhausted, a process that could take decades to play out given the fact that anything into the east 40’s is considered prime residential development land as the CSU and Euclid Avenue corridor merges into University Circle.
The same location dynamics don’t apply to the Burke site, it’s simply too isolated to compete for potential residents who work towards University Circle, unless of course they are interested in maintaining a boat, something I don’t think many medical types are attracted to. The boating crowd, in my mind, is the only logical market for residential units at Burke and I question it’s size and see many more attractive alternatives in very close proximity.
Lastly, I want to point out the extremely disappointing water conditions that will greet you at the Burke shoreline. There are two break-walls separating you from the lake, and the farther one is so tall that you cannot easily see over it. If these break-walls weren’t there, the shoreline would be dashed to bits two or three times a year, and nothing at all could be built, so they can’t be removed, which would be impossibly expensive anyway.
If you don’t believe me, you haven’t been to the Burke shoreline. Go there, look out onto the trapped lake water, think bout the climb you’ve got to get back up into downtown, and wonder what the fighting’s all about.
The average Clevelander might visit Burke once, maybe twice a year for an air show and festival.
There is one thing that drives me utterly insane about Cleveland compared to many other lake front cities/areas; that is our lack of lake access. The entire northeast Ohio population is funneled into Mentor Headlands, Edgewater, Huntington and a handfull of other very small not so nice parks to enjoy this cities greatest natural feature.
That being said I would rather this massive property be transformed into anything but what it currently is. An airport…right outside downtown…right on a great lake. That is about as foolish a waste of perfect land as anything I could think of. Cleveland is starved for downtown and its surrounding areas to not only attract people to visit but to live and take up full time residence. The only true way to obtain this is to give the area what it needs to attract people to it. No one sees an empty airport with weeds growing from its tarmac and thinks, “wow this city is really on the rise!”
It’s frustrating seeing a massive chunk of prime real estate sit idle for a hand full of private flights a day.
I so long for Cleveland to thrive again and such an obvious and no brainer step would be capitalizing on what most consider a derelict airport. But alas…this is Cleveland. Home of political red tape and snuffed projects.
In light of the championship drought being broken finally (THANK YOU CAVS!) we should keep this train rolling and break some very old habits and eye sores around town.
To quote a favorite movie of mine…if you build it, they will come.
Why don’t they close Cuyahoga County airport and move those operations to Burke?