I'm not a real estate developer, but I play one on TV. For some bizarre reason, the movement to retrofit a retractable roof onto Cleveland Browns Stadium is getting plenty of local exposure these days. Last morning, I listened to an interview with architect Robert Corna on the radio.

While Corna's design isn't as ugly and obtrusive as I imagined, retractable roofs and such are ugly by definition. And that's basically the only compliment I can pay this misguided and distressing effort. First of all, retractable roofs are for wimps. Second of all, Cleveland's nasty winter weather gives the Browns a considerable home field advantage, which would be helpful if the Browns are ever to have a home playoff game again.

The most ridiculous moment of the interview occurred when Corna describes walking around Browns Stadium on a non-gameday. Of course, the area was deserted. But somehow, with a retractable roof, people would be hanging out around the stadium around-the-clock. The stadium can never be a place to hang out or be vibrant, or anything like that. True, with a roof, it could host more events. But Cleveland isn't starving for venues to hold events (Quicken Loans Arena, Wolstein Center, Convention Center, I-X Center).

On the news of Corna's proposal to City Council, Neil deMause, the stadium expert behind Field of Schemes, cracked that Cleveland "could be the next Detroit." Ironically, Corna proudly mirrors this view, dimly unaware that copying Detroit is never the answer. Unless, of course, city leaders are looking for a way to improve our badly slumping carjacking figures. Not to mention that Detroit has more than double the number of hotel rooms available than Cleveland, thanks to Windsor, Ontario. I don't think Cleveland could accommodate the influx of tourists visiting the city if it were to host a Super Bowl.

deMause referred me to the work of economist Phil Porter. Porter has studied the Super Bowl and its economic impact on the host city. Unsurprisingly, he found that Super Bowls have much smaller impact effect than widely believed. A large part of this is due to the NFL and stadium builders simply counting up all economic activity somehow touched by the game. However, they fail to mention that some of the hotel rooms would still be occupied even without the Super Bowl. Also, as deMause points out, "When 100,000 football fans drop by for a visit, somebody has to cart them around, clean up after them, and throw them in the clink for public drunkenness and ticket-scalping. During a Super Bowl, the average city can expect to spend big on police overtime, additional public transit services, and sanitation."

By the way, Corna estimates the cost of the roof to be $90,000,000. But when was the last time any stadium construction finished on budget?

Frankly, I don't understand the big hub-bub about getting a Super Bowl. Surely it'll boost business and tourism in Cleveland, for one week. Super Bowl XXXIX was in Jacksonville, and I'm doubtful anyone is yearning to take the family down to Jacksonville because hey, they had a Super Bowl two years ago! Hosting the big game won't do much for Cleveland the millisecond the big game is over. You know what would be better than hosting the Super Bowl? Winning a Super Bowl. Let's try that first.

Altogether, the dubious positive influx from hosting a Super Bowl, the city having to foot a large bill to accommodate and clean up after all the visitors, a pricetag all-but-guaranteed to be higher than the projected $90M, and an unsightly addition to Cleveland Browns Stadium add up to a terrible investment. I doubt that the city could recoup the cost of building a retractable roof. Instead, I propose Cleveland builds a gigantic multi-use lakefront stadium that could seat 100,000. Maybe we'll get the Olympics!!!