Do you think that Burke Lakefront Airport should close? Read more from city leaders here:

Do you think that Burke Lakefront Airport should close? Read more from city leaders here:

The question of whether Miami’s downtown lakefront anchor, Burke Lakefront Airport (often abbreviated as “Burke”), should close is generating major discussion among city, county and federal leaders. Let’s unpack the key facts, arguments for closure, arguments against, and my assessment of the issue.

Background
Burke Lakefront Airport (Cleveland, Ohio) covers about 450 acres of prime lakefront real estate

Historically it was the city’s downtown airport, offering convenient access.
Wikipedia

Recently, city leadership in Cleveland and Cuyahoga County (specifically, Mayor Justin Bibb and County Executive Chris Ronayne) have formally requested federal assistance (including from the Federal Aviation Administration and the U.S. Department of Transportation) to decommission the airport and repurpose the land.

Their letter argues that “the benefits of the airport don’t outweigh the costs” and that re-developing the lakefront can create parks, trails and economic development opportunities.
spectrumnews1.com
+1

Studies commissioned by the city suggest closing the airport would have minimal economic and aeronautical impact.
Axios

Arguments For Closure
High‐value land underutilised
The airport sits on a very desirable stretch of lakefront—land that could be redeveloped for public access (parks, trails) or commercial/residential uses. The argument: the opportunity cost of holding it as an airport is large.
spectrumnews1.com
+1

Declining aviation use
The airport’s general aviation and commercial operations have declined compared to its peak. One report notes traffic from over 100,000 takeoffs/landings in 2000 to ~40,000 in 2021

With less activity, the case is that the airport is under-performing relative to the land it occupies.

Potential for transformative economic development
City/county leadership argue that redeveloping the 450 acres could bring in “billions in long-term impact” via jobs, increased tax base, enhanced tourism, and public access to the lakefront.
https://www.cleveland19.com
+1

Public access and equity
The argument: The lakefront has been “walled off” from the city for too long by the airport, and closing it could expand amenities for all residents rather than a relatively small aviation user base.
spectrumnews1.com

Arguments Against Closure
Existing aviation infrastructure and connectivity
Even if operations have declined, the airport still serves general aviation, business travel and potentially specialized flights (medical transport, charter, private jets). Closing it may disrupt or shift those operations to other facilities, possibly less convenient.

Economic activity and jobs
The studies say impact may be “minimal,” but they still identify ~$77 million in direct annual economic activity for the airport.
Axios
Eliminating the airport could affect jobs and revenue tied to aviation operations, hangars, fixed-based operators, support services.

Cost and complexity of closure
Decommissioning an airport is a non-trivial process: there are regulatory, legal, environmental and fiscal implications. The city’s study pointed to logistic hurdles and financial obligations in the closure scenario.
Axios

Uncertainty of redevelopment success
The redevelopment vision is appealing, but large-scale waterfront transformation projects carry risk: higher costs, delays, market fluctuations, environmental issues (being adjacent to Lake Erie). The airport is a known quantity.

My Assessment & Recommendation
After weighing both sides, I lean toward supporting closure, but only if several conditions are met to mitigate the risks. Here’s how I’d frame it:

The land asset is simply too valuable and centrally located to ignore the opportunity. If the airport is under-used and the city has a credible plan for redevelopment that improves access for residents, that argues strongly for change.

However — the decision should not be rushed. The city and county must ensure that other regional aviation needs are fully covered (i.e., business jets, general aviation, medical flights) so that closure doesn’t create worse outcomes. The leadership letter addresses this (“making sure other regional airports can handle critical general aviation needs”).
spectrumnews1.com
+1

The governance, funding and timeline of redevelopment must be clearly spelled out: what happens to the 450 acres, how will park/trail space be allocated, how will private development be controlled to ensure public benefit.

Since the airport still contributes economic activity (~$77 m/year per the study), the transition should include strategies to capture local benefits and minimise job loss from aviation to other sectors.

Community input is essential — residents, businesses, aviation stakeholders should be engaged to reduce conflict and build consensus.

In short: yes, I think Burke Lakefront Airport should close, if the city commits to a well-planned, phased, transparent transition that safeguards aviation needs and maximises public benefit from the lakefront. If the closure is attempted without those guardrails, the risk of negative unintended consequences is real.

What Happens Next
The city and county are requesting federal authorization (via Congress and the FAA) for the closure.
https://www.cleveland19.com

Studies and planning will continue: assessing logistics of closure, viable redevelopment scenarios, financial modelling.

Public hearings and stakeholder engagement should follow.

If approved, a phased approach could start: gradually reducing operations, relocating aviation services, then transitioning parts of the land for park/trail use, then development.

Would you like me to pull up detailed data and maps of the site, and compare case-studies of other cities that have closed or repurposed similar downtown airports for redevelopment?