Readers: Don't close Burke just yet
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Illustration: Maura Kearns/Axios
Axios Cleveland readers who responded to our recent coverage of Burke Lakefront Airport lean strongly toward keeping the airport open.
Why it matters: The responses surprised us. For years, we've seen public sentiment overwhelmingly in the other direction.
- But the prevailing attitude among our readership is that Cleveland shouldn't eliminate a functioning piece of aviation infrastructure without a concrete, financed redevelopment plan.
What they're saying: Several say the city should first prove it can successfully redevelop the Browns stadium site before tackling Burke.
- Others cite the Cleveland National Air Show, aviation education and potential future uses like drones and air taxis as reasons to preserve the airport.
- A recurring theme is one voiced by industry representatives in a recent letter to Cleveland City Council: Once Burke is gone, Cleveland can't easily get it back.
Zoom in: "There are too many people on social media who compare Burke to Meigs Field in Chicago," reader Blaine B. writes.
- "Meigs was only 75 acres on the shore of one of the most dense urban neighborhoods in America. Burke is 450 acres on a downtown littered with parking lots, struggling to find 20,000 residents, and surrounded by a city infused with 'urban prairies.'"
The other side: As in years past, those favoring closure argue that valuable lakefront property shouldn't be devoted to a relatively small number of private aviation users.
Between the lines: Even some readers who favor closing Burke want the city to produce detailed redevelopment plans, identify funding and find new homes for aviation programs before shutting down the airport.