Stadium Discussion

[KevinJRogers]

Yes , but it’s also an entire complex that’s more than large enough. It also had such strong backing from a tennis-loving mayor that he has a plaque at the site.



The Yankees killed the deal not because they are our partner, but in spite of it. They had the power to kill the deal because of the parking garages, and that will continue to be the case whether they are partners with us or not.

I'm afraid that's the case. And as to LionNYC 's comment, quite true -- but there's plenty of land on Willets Point.

But I think our main problem is will. Where is CFG? If I'm Ferran Soriano I'm on a plane in January and on my way to NYC. First, I meet with Garber and see where the league is on our stadium. "Will you back us in a buyout to get it done, even if we do it ourselves? If you won't, will you lean on the Yankees with us?"

And I mean really lean. Turn that 20 percent into such a headache for Levine and Co. they just want to get rid of it.

Then I take Sims -- and Levine too, if he doesn't want a boatload of public and private pressure and decides to stay in -- down to City Hall for a meeting with Adams. Lots of advance notice to the sports, business and political press. Scheduled news conference afterward. Depending on whether the Yankees are still in or not, either push the GAL plan or say emphatically we would be fine in Queens.

(Of course, I would have already talked to Related and Steve Cohen before I got on the plane.)

Then at the press conference I talk jobs, community development, jobs, economic opportunity, jobs, "hey you guys know we're the league champions, right?" and jobs, jobs, jobs. And tell Sims to get the NYCFC social media team on the stick and keep talking about it. Make sure Third Rail and Los Templados are in the loop. Recruit the bar and restaurant owners who are in the network, too. And on and on.

Finally, I organize a design charette in either the Bronx or Queens -- we have to focus on one, so it's decision time -- and pull in all the stakeholders to see how we can make it work as a part of a wider development plan with the usual elements: schools, retail, residential, firehouse, public space.

Now, all that is somewhat contingent on us having just two viable alternatives. We've supposedly been "looking around" so there may be a site we're not aware of. But even if that's the case, the process is the same. Focus on what you want, eliminate the in-house obstacles, get the relevant players at all levels in the game with you, then get after it and get it done.

At this point, it's on us.

 

[FredMertz]

I'm afraid that's the case. And as to LionNYC 's comment, quite true -- but there's plenty of land on Willets Point.

But I think our main problem is will. Where is CFG? If I'm Ferran Soriano I'm on a plane in January and on my way to NYC. First, I meet with Garber and see where the league is on our stadium. "Will you back us in a buyout to get it done, even if we do it ourselves? If you won't, will you lean on the Yankees with us?"

And I mean really lean. Turn that 20 percent into such a headache for Levine and Co. they just want to get rid of it.

Then I take Sims -- and Levine too, if he doesn't want a boatload of public and private pressure and decides to stay in -- down to City Hall for a meeting with Adams. Lots of advance notice to the sports, business and political press. Scheduled news conference afterward. Depending on whether the Yankees are still in or not, either push the GAL plan or say emphatically we would be fine in Queens.

(Of course, I would have already talked to Related and Steve Cohen before I got on the plane.)

Then at the press conference I talk jobs, community development, jobs, economic opportunity, jobs, "hey you guys know we're the league champions, right?" and jobs, jobs, jobs. And tell Sims to get the NYCFC social media team on the stick and keep talking about it. Make sure Third Rail and Los Templados are in the loop. Recruit the bar and restaurant owners who are in the network, too. And on and on.

Finally, I organize a design charette in either the Bronx or Queens -- we have to focus on one, so it's decision time -- and pull in all the stakeholders to see how we can make it work as a part of a wider development plan with the usual elements: schools, retail, residential, firehouse, public space.

Now, all that is somewhat contingent on us having just two viable alternatives. We've supposedly been "looking around" so there may be a site we're not aware of. But even if that's the case, the process is the same. Focus on what you want, eliminate the in-house obstacles, get the relevant players at all levels in the game with you, then get after it and get it done.

At this point, it's on us.

He doesn’t care.

 

[KevinJRogers]

He doesn’t care.

Who, Soriano or Levine?

 

[Brooklyn Blue]

It has been longer than anyone has desired, but one cannot underestimate how long land use projects take in New York City. Throwing money at a project is often not as simple as it seems.

 

[FredMertz]

Who, Soriano or Levine?

Soriano.

 

[KevinJRogers]

Soriano.

It's possible. Which would be very bad, of course. It's also possible he's just given up hope, which is a hell of a lot worse in a lot of ways.

But I tend to doubt it. I'm sure there are plenty of internal projections showing how much better the franchise would perform in its own park. My guess is there's something holding him back; some kind of clause (or clauses) in the partnership or franchise agreement restricting his ability to step in.

After all, what I laid out above isn't rocket science. It's just how you do it. If I know it, he definitely knows it.

 

[KevinJRogers]

It has been longer than anyone has desired, but one cannot underestimate how long land use projects take in New York City. Throwing money at a project is often not as simple as it seems.

True, but the where and how and who matters. The Mets came into existence in 1962 and were playing in Shea by 1964. The stadium took 29 months to complete. The whole process, from the first proposal to the first pitch, took around five years. The Mets only had to play two seasons at the Polo Grounds, and that was just because of a really bad winter and some other factors causing construction delays in Queens. It should have been just one.

So, if we're going to look at historical examples, we see it can be done.

And don't forget, we had a full proposal ready for a vote by Bronx CB4 last summer. It's hard for me to buy the "it's just really difficult" argument when we were already there, at the front end of the final approval process, with everything we needed to get started all lined up.

 

[SoupInNYC]

And don't forget, we had a full proposal ready for a vote by Bronx CB4 last summer. It's hard for me to buy the "it's just really difficult" argument when we were already there, at the front end of the final approval process, with everything we needed to get started all lined up.

To clarify, there was not a full proposal ready for a vote in the summer. Just a vote to sever the lease.

The rest no doubt would have followed, but it almost certainly would have been either late 2021 or early 2022 when any full proposal details would have been voted on or at least publicly scrutinized.

 

[KevinJRogers]

To clarify, there was not a full proposal ready for a vote in the summer. Just a vote to sever the lease.

The rest no doubt would have followed, but it almost certainly would have been either late 2021 or early 2022 when any full proposal details would have been voted on or at least publicly scrutinized.

That's true, I could have worded that a little better. You're right, it was just the first vote in the process (in fairness, I did say the "front end" LOL).

Anyway, by December 2020 public reports made the contours of the project clear [ https://bit.ly/3q0WRTS ], so it's a fair assumption the Yankees, NYCFC and Maddd Equities had more than enough to create a formal proposal when required, if they didn't already have one in their desks. Some of the excellent reporting last summer (especially yours) contained a lot of the details of "New York City FC’s stadium plan."

But we couldn't even get to that first vote. That's incredibly frustrating. And enough to make it clear it's just not going to work in the Bronx.

[Ed. note: Sorry for all the edits -- I was typing away while trying to put Bionic Grandma to bed. LOL]

 

[Brooklyn Blue]

True, but the where and how and who matters. The Mets came into existence in 1962 and were playing in Shea by 1964. The stadium took 29 months to complete. The whole process, from the first proposal to the first pitch, took around five years. The Mets only had to play two seasons at the Polo Grounds, and that was just because of a really bad winter and some other factors causing construction delays in Queens. It should have been just one.

So, if we're going to look at historical examples, we see it can be done.

And don't forget, we had a full proposal ready for a vote by Bronx CB4 last summer. It's hard for me to buy the "it's just really difficult" argument when we were already there, at the front end of the final approval process, with everything we needed to get started all lined up.

There is absolutely no comparison between the 1960's Mets and the 2020's NYCFC.

Baseball at that time was THE sport in this country, with little competition from the NFL, NBA, etc. The land use requirements were a speck compared to those today - the current NYC Zoning Resolution was enacted in December 1961, adding layers to any stadium project, and the environmental review has gone from non-existent to massive. Prior to the internet and social media, public review - and public opposition - were a fraction of what they are today.

A better comparison would be Barclay's Center. Barclay's was initially considered circa 2003 when Ratner bought the Nets. It opened its doors in 2012. Barclay's required a smaller footprint than a soccer stadium, was built during the Bloomberg administration and a decade of growth (prior to the recession), and was contemplated for the more popular NBA than MLS. If there is an arena to use as a comparison, Barclay's would be it - even if it isn't perfect.

Barclay's took roughly a decade. NYCFC is still within that window, albeit nearing the end.

 

[KevinJRogers]

There is absolutely no comparison between the 1960's Mets and the 2020's NYCFC.

Baseball at that time was THE sport in this country, with little competition from the NFL, NBA, etc. The land use requirements were a speck compared to those today - the current NYC Zoning Resolution was enacted in December 1961, adding layers to any stadium project, and the environmental review has gone from non-existent to massive. Prior to the internet and social media, public review - and public opposition - were a fraction of what they are today.

A better comparison would be Barclay's Center. Barclay's was initially considered circa 2003 when Ratner bought the Nets. It opened its doors in 2012. Barclay's required a smaller footprint than a soccer stadium, was built during the Bloomberg administration and a decade of growth (prior to the recession), and was contemplated for the more popular NBA than MLS. If there is an arena to use as a comparison, Barclay's would be it - even if it isn't perfect.

Barclay's took roughly a decade. NYCFC is still within that window, albeit nearing the end.

Barclays Center was proposed in 2004, broke ground in 2010 and was open for business in 2012. We're nearing the end of that exact time frame and we couldn't even get to the first Bronx Community Board 4 vote.

And while the process down on Atlantic Avenue certainly wasn't pretty, it got done. Lots of other projects have also gotten done or are in the process of getting done. The skyline is constantly dotted with construction cranes. Some of them are looming over the site in Elmont we were "looking at" and where the Islanders will make their new home.

So to me, all this sounds like a lot of excuses. I keep hearing about how hard it is, and how this or that "isn't a great comparison," but in my lifetime there's been a massive amount of construction in New York City. And since I was born in 1962, "my lifetime" means since the 1961 Zoning Resolution.

So someone has figured out how to do it. What I want to know is, why not us? Is this an executive failure? If so, what are the reasons for it? If not, what's the real problem? Because that's the first thing we have to straighten out. If we're constantly talking about why we can't do it instead of how we're going to do it, we are never, ever, ever going to get there.

 

[Shwafta]

Some of them are looming over the site in Elmont we were "looking at" and where the Islanders will make their new home.

Not here to contribute to this convo at all, but they've already opened it hah

UBS Arena - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[GratefulDawg]

Kids, get your NYCFC 2022 home stadium sticker set!

 

[Marito]

There is absolutely no comparison between the 1960's Mets and the 2020's NYCFC.

Baseball at that time was THE sport in this country, with little competition from the NFL, NBA, etc. The land use requirements were a speck compared to those today - the current NYC Zoning Resolution was enacted in December 1961, adding layers to any stadium project, and the environmental review has gone from non-existent to massive. Prior to the internet and social media, public review - and public opposition - were a fraction of what they are today.

A better comparison would be Barclay's Center. Barclay's was initially considered circa 2003 when Ratner bought the Nets. It opened its doors in 2012. Barclay's required a smaller footprint than a soccer stadium, was built during the Bloomberg administration and a decade of growth (prior to the recession), and was contemplated for the more popular NBA than MLS. If there is an arena to use as a comparison, Barclay's would be it - even if it isn't perfect.

Barclay's took roughly a decade. NYCFC is still within that window, albeit nearing the end.

I think the comparison is interesting, because on the one hand the NBA is more popular and has more clout that the MLS, but on the other hand the area where they got to build Barclay's is waaay more desirable that the area around YS. In the last 20 to 30 years downtown Brooklyn has been the epicenter of a real estate mega transformation, so the plot where Barclay's was built must have been very fought over, not like the measly broke garages that the Yankees used as an excuse to kill our stadium project

 

[Brooklyn Blue]

Barclays Center was proposed in 2004, broke ground in 2010 and was open for business in 2012. We're nearing the end of that exact time frame and we couldn't even get to the first Bronx Community Board 4 vote.

And while the process down on Atlantic Avenue certainly wasn't pretty, it got done. Lots of other projects have also gotten done or are in the process of getting done. The skyline is constantly dotted with construction cranes. Some of them are looming over the site in Elmont we were "looking at" and where the Islanders will make their new home.

So to me, all this sounds like a lot of excuses. I keep hearing about how hard it is, and how this or that "isn't a great comparison," but in my lifetime there's been a massive amount of construction in New York City. And since I was born in 1962, "my lifetime" means since the 1961 Zoning Resolution.

So someone has figured out how to do it. What I want to know is, why not us? Is this an executive failure? If so, what are the reasons for it? If not, what's the real problem? Because that's the first thing we have to straighten out. If we're constantly talking about why we can't do it instead of how we're going to do it, we are never, ever, ever going to get there.

There is a massive difference between as of right and discretionary projects. Projects suitable for comparison would be discretionary projects.

Barclay's took approximately a decade, under a pro-development administration, on State owned land (which can eliminate certain City requirements), and during the infancy of social media. It is the best comparison, but is had benefits that a current soccer stadium project would not have. For non-stadium projects, Hudson Yards may offer a better comparison. But, I wouldn't advise researching the history of that site unless you want to be depressed about stadium prospects.

I appreciate frustration over stadium development, and I share it as a fan. However, as someone that works within the land use sector of this City, I accept that site confirmation can still be pending despite significant effort. Blaming the team, and only the team, is simplistic.

I expect the team still wants to have a stadium in place by 2026, and to that end I hope they pivot to the Queens site (which should help accelerate the process). 2026 seems a long time, but if they have it in place 11 years after the first game, I would find that reasonable within New York City.

 

[KevinJRogers]

Not here to contribute to this convo at all, but they've already opened it hah

UBS Arena - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Don't follow hockey.

Good for them, though. I know enough to know they hated the ice at Barclays.

 

[KevinJRogers]

There is a massive difference between as of right and discretionary projects. Projects suitable for comparison would be discretionary projects.

Barclay's took approximately a decade, under a pro-development administration, on State owned land (which can eliminate certain City requirements), and during the infancy of social media. It is the best comparison, but is had benefits that a current soccer stadium project would not have. For non-stadium projects, Hudson Yards may offer a better comparison. But, I wouldn't advise researching the history of that site unless you want to be depressed about stadium prospects.

I appreciate frustration over stadium development, and I share it as a fan. However, as someone that works within the land use sector of this City, I accept that site confirmation can still be pending despite significant effort. Blaming the team, and only the team, is simplistic.

I expect the team still wants to have a stadium in place by 2026, and to that end I hope they pivot to the Queens site (which should help accelerate the process). 2026 seems a long time, but if they have it in place 11 years after the first game, I would find that reasonable within New York City.

To be clear, I'm not "blaming the team." There are obviously a lot of complications. I'm asking honest questions with accountability in mind. If the delay is because they were so committed to the Bronx because of something within the partnership or franchise agreement with the Yankees, that's a reasonable answer for them spending so much time on it. (That begs the question why they would dangle other locations, of course.) But no one in authority has said that. So we don't know.

What I find troubling is this: we keep hearing about all the obstacles in our way. All that tells me is we have to try harder. It may well be the case we'd be in this position no matter what we did, but when I look at the things we haven't done -- at least publicly -- from an organizational management perspective, I see some significant missed opportunities.

Now, I don't know the gritty details of the franchise agreement, so I may be assuming more autonomy than the team actually has. But here's the first thing I'd do: have a tab on our website labeled "Our Stadium" with conceptual drawings for each of the most viable locations. "Here's what it would look like at the GAL site. Here's Willets Point. Here's what it would look like on a platform over the Coney Island Rail Yard (I'm from Brooklyn so I had to throw that one in there LOL), etc."

We need to have something tangible to point to. The public has to be able to visualize it. And the nice thing about conceptual drawings is, you can put them on a handy board and cart them off to wherever you're playing or you have a press conference or a public event. When we had our victory celebration at City Hall we could have had them on an easel next to the podium. (Bonus: it would have tweaked de Blasio's nose a little on the way out the door.)

Here's another suggestion: we need to stop talking about the stadium as something we need to have granted to us, and start talking about it -- constantly -- as a net positive. We have to make it the prize. "We don't know which lucky neighborhood (always talk "neighborhood") is going to get our park yet, but we know once we find the right willing partner it's going to be a massive winner and create tons of jobs and opportunities for the local residents."

That was obviously the tack for the latest GAL proposal, so I'm preaching to the choir a little. It's kind of a no-brainer anyway. But my point is, it should be a constant theme. And we should be leveraging every possible community connection we can (I pointed out a few in a post above) in order to build grassroots support; some of which we've also been doing, but in my opinion not aggressively or publicly enough.

The key being "publicly." For instance, there should be an NYCFC banner at every block party this summer. (If someone steals it, that's cool. LOL)

There's a lot more, but I think I'll stop there and get off this. Just one final point: SoupInNYC has done a lot of excellent reporting on this, and his articles on the parking garage fiasco were real eye-openers. So, when I talk about executive failure, I'm not just talking about our guys. Levine and Co. are involved too, and actually far more to blame. So are the decision makers at MADDD.

But the bottom line is, we literally failed to execute a really viable plan to build our stadium as part of a wider community development project, which is exactly the way it has to be done. We need to know for a fact if the reason is because we have bad-faith partners involved.

That last part is why I've talked about reaching out to Related and moving our focus to Willets Point, by the way. All things being equal, the South Bronx is probably the far better location in terms of accessibility, and it would be great to help a community which really needs it. But if the Yankees are going to sabotage every deal we have to move on.

 

[Brooklyn Blue]

Here's another suggestion: we need to stop talking about the stadium as something we need to have granted to us, and start talking about it -- constantly -- as a net positive. We have to make it the prize. "We don't know which lucky neighborhood (always talk "neighborhood") is going to get our park yet, but we know once we find the right willing partner it's going to be a massive winner and create tons of jobs and opportunities for the local residents."

Hard agree. I accept that the Bronx was the sole focus early on due to community history and Yankee (Stadium) ties. At this point, however, it is time to shop around and make the location selection "what can we do for each other" rather than "what can we do for you."

 

[KevinJRogers]

Hard agree. I accept that the Bronx was the sole focus early on due to community history and Yankee (Stadium) ties. At this point, however, it is time to shop around and make the location selection "what can we do for each other" rather than "what can we do for you."

Mutual benefit is the foundation of any good deal. That's a given. But that's not my point. I'm talking about creating demand.

 

[Jon]

Hard agree. I accept that the Bronx was the sole focus early on due to community history and Yankee (Stadium) ties. At this point, however, it is time to shop around and make the location selection "what can we do for each other" rather than "what can we do for you."

At this point it should be about taking the location "within the city" with the least path of resistance. I'm all aboard Willets Point if it means shovel in ground sooner. If the Yankees are going to block us in the BX then it's time to move on.