Stadium Discussion

NickFromAstoria said:
Things I didn't think I'd be pondering today: Can a stadium be built to fit through the Saint Lawrence Seaway?
Click to expand...

Maximum beam allowable 78 feet so its impossible to fit the field in one go. Maximum length is 738 feet so your going to need A LOT of tugs for the individual components if you want to have a chance at trying the lashed together design. But the lashed design basically means that in anything less than perfect weather there is going to be salt water seaspray of some kind getting onto the field during transit, requiring the field to be stripped of its dirt and resown basically every time it moves.

The NYCFC stadium in geostationary orbit on NYC's longitude plane is the only one that's more impractical than the lashed together stadium design.
 
What about a stadium that chanes location from a barge? One day at Brooklyn Bridge Prk, one day in Williamsburg, one day at LIC, one day at 34th street
 
City-Nole said:
So our likelihood of getting a stadium is no more or less than it was this morning
Click to expand...
It's *slightly* better in that they don't have to compete with other developers for that site if they choose it.
mgarbowski said:
I have significant doubts about the legality of the "another stadium" part as well.
Click to expand...
Someone will have to dig up the actual statute in question, but I believe it said that land was only for public amusement, so things like a stadium, parking lots for a stadium, fields for events, small arenas, etc. I don't know how well another stadium plays into that but that's a question for an appeals court.

Though clearly there's some support from the Queens BP, and the local city council members which is a prerequisite for City Council approval.
 
NYCFCfan said:
Someone will have to dig up the actual statute in question, but I believe it said that land was only for public amusement, so things like a stadium, parking lots for a stadium, fields for events, small arenas, etc.
Click to expand...

Gotcha covered:

§ 18-118 Renting of stadium in Flushing Meadow park; exemption from
down payment requirements. a. Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, general, special or local, the city, acting by the commissioner,
with the approval of the board of estimate, is hereby authorized and
empowered from time to time to enter into contracts, leases or rental
agreements with, or grant licenses, permits, concessions or other
authorizations to, any person or persons, upon such terms and
conditions, for such consideration, and for such term of duration as may
be agreed upon by the city and such person or persons, whereby such
person or persons are granted the right, for any purpose or purposes
referred to in subdivision b of this section, to use, occupy or carry on
activities in, the whole or any part of a stadium, with appurtenant
grounds, parking areas and other facilities, to be constructed by the
city on certain tracts of land described in subdivision c of this
section, being a part of Flushing Meadow park and situated in the
borough of Queens, city and state of New York, title to which tracts is
now in the city. Prior to or after the expiration or termination of the
terms of duration of any contracts, leases, rental agreements, licenses,
permits, concessions or other authorizations entered into or granted
pursuant to the provisions of this subdivision and subdivision b of this
section, the city, in accordance with the requirements and conditions of
this subdivision and subdivision b of this section, may from time to
time enter into amended, new, additional or further contracts, leases or
rental agreements with, and grant new, additional or further licenses,
permits, concessions or other authorizations to, the same or any other
person or persons for any purpose or purposes referred to in subdivision
b of this section.
b. Any contract, lease, rental agreement, license, permit, concession
or other authorization referred to in subdivision a of this section may
grant to the person or persons contracting with the city thereunder, the
right to use, occupy or carry on activities in, the whole or any part of
such stadium, grounds, parking areas and other facilities, (1) for any
purpose or purposes which is of such a nature as to furnish to, or
foster or promote among, or provide for the benefit of, the people of
the city, recreation, entertainment, amusement, education,
enlightenment, cultural development or betterment, and improvement of
trade and commerce, including professional, amateur and scholastic
sports and athletic events, theatrical, musical or other entertainment
presentations, and meetings, assemblages, conventions and exhibitions
for any purpose, including meetings, assemblages, conventions and
exhibitions held for business or trade purposes, and other events of
civic, community and general public interest, and/or (2) for any
business or commercial purpose which aids in the financing of the
construction and operation of such stadium, grounds, parking areas and
facilities, and any additions, alterations or improvements thereto, or
to the equipment thereof, and which does not interfere with the
accomplishment of the purposes referred to in paragraph one of this
subdivision. It is hereby declared that all of the purposes referred to
in this subdivision are for the benefit of the people of the city and
for the improvement of their health, welfare, recreation and prosperity,
for the promotion of competitive sports for youth and the prevention of
juvenile delinquency, and for the improvement of trade and commerce, and
are hereby declared to be public purposes.
c. The tracts of land referred to in subdivision a of this section are
more particularly described as follows:
1. The area of land bounded on the north by the south side of Northern
boulevard, on the east by the west side of One hundred twenty-sixth



street, on the south by the north side of Roosevelt avenue, and on the
west by the east side of Grand Central parkway.
2. The area of land bounded on the north by the south side of
Roosevelt avenue, on the east by the west side of One hundred
twenty-sixth street, on the south by lands of the city of New York
occupied by the New York city transit authority, and on the west by the
east side of Grand Central parkway, excepting from such area of land,
the portion thereof fronting on Roosevelt avenue occupied by such
authority as a substation.
d. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section or the
provisions of any other law, general, special or local, the
commissioner, acting in behalf of the city, is hereby authorized and
empowered, without the approval of the board of estimate, to enter into
contracts, leases or rental agreements with or grant licenses, permits,
concessions or other authorizations to any person or persons, upon such
terms and conditions and for such consideration as may be agreed upon by
the commissioner and such person or persons, for terms of duration,
which, in the case of each such contract, lease, rental agreement,
license, permit or other authorization, including renewals, shall not be
in excess of one year, whereby such person or persons are granted the
right to use, occupy or carry on activities in, the whole or any part of
such stadium, grounds, parking areas and other facilities, for any
purpose or purposes referred to in subdivision b of this section. Upon
the expiration of the terms of duration of any of such contracts,
leases, rental agreements, licenses, permits, concessions or other
authorizations entered into or granted pursuant to the provisions of
this subdivision, or within thirty days prior to such expiration or
termination, the commissioner, in accordance with the requirements and
conditions of this subdivision, acting in behalf of the city, and
without the approval of the board of estimate, may from time to time
enter into new, additional or further contracts, leases or rental
agreements with, and may grant new, additional or further licenses,
permits, concessions or other authorizations to, the same or any other
person or persons for any purpose or purposes referred to in subdivision
b of this section.
e. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 107.00 of the local
finance law, for the purpose of financing and paying the cost of the
construction of such stadium, grounds, parking areas and facilities, and
the construction of any additions, alterations or improvements thereto
or to the equipment thereof, including a roof for such stadium and
increased seating capacity therein, the city is hereby authorized and
empowered, without providing from current funds any part of such cost or
otherwise complying with the provisions of section 107.00 of such law,
but upon compliance by the city with all other applicable provisions of
the local finance law, to issue bonds and bond anticipation notes and to
make expenditures from the proceeds of such bonds and bond anticipation
notes or from any fund into which such proceeds are paid.
Click to expand...

(Sorry if the formatting is weird - mobile posts plus the state's spartan website don't make for a pretty posting)
 
As an outsider, this spot has always made the most logistical sense. There is room. There is parking. There is public transportation. It's in an undeveloped part of the City. You could buy up more land and put a training center in. It's part of a larger sports complex (even though the tennis and baseball people won't admit it).

Driving in from Westchester, there is no difference for me between here and GAL
 
That's the statute. The concern I have is every reference to a stadium is singular, including the title. There is language you can work with to argue otherwise as well, but at a minimum anyone who wanted to tie this up in litigation has some grounds for doing so. The 2015 court decision that is being appealed to the higher court now talks about the statute as being for one stadium, or at most one stadium at a time: first Shea, then Citi Field:

"In 1961 legislation related to a stadium that was anticipated to be constructed in Flushing Meadow Park in Queens (the Park) was enacted. It was entitled "Renting of stadium in Flushing Meadow park; exemption from down payment requirements," and codified in Administrative Code of the City of New York § 18-118. The stadium that the legislation anticipated being constructed by the City in the Park was indeed built, and opened as Shea Stadium, the home of the New York Mets. In 2006, the owners of the Mets and the City agreed that the stadium would be demolished and replaced with a new stadium immediately to the east. That stadium, Citi Field, opened in 2009."
Matter of Avella v. City of N.Y.
 
Last edited:
It's too bad the Polo Grounds were demolished. Maybe the nostalgia of a "Rebuild the Etihad Polo Grounds!" campaign would help. Pledge some millions to remove and relocate the low income housing on the site at a 2-to-1 resident replacement rate.
 
mgarbowski said:
That's the statute. The concern I have is every reference to a stadium is singular, including the title. There is language you can work with to argue otherwise as well, but at a minimum anyone who wanted to tie this up in litigation has some grounds for doing so. The 2015 court decision that is being appealed to the higher court now talks about the statute as being for one stadium, or at most one stadium at a time: first Shea, then Citi Field:

"In 1961 legislation related to a stadium that was anticipated to be constructed in Flushing Meadow Park in Queens (the Park) was enacted. It was entitled "Renting of stadium in Flushing Meadow park; exemption from down payment requirements," and codified in Administrative Code of the City of New York § 18-118. The stadium that the legislation anticipated being constructed by the City in the Park was indeed built, and opened as Shea Stadium, the home of the New York Mets. In 2006, the owners of the Mets and the City agreed that the stadium would be demolished and replaced with a new stadium immediately to the east. That stadium, Citi Field, opened in 2009."
Matter of Avella v. City of N.Y.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we're kinda dealing with the unfortunate reality here that (1) this was the era of "Robert Moses needs a bill passed? Let's just throw something together and he'll take care of the details." and (2) New York State doesn't exactly have a great reputation for drafting clear statutes. So we undoubtedly would be better off with the state passing an amendment to clean up this provision, although it'll be interesting to see if the opinion that eventually comes out speculates on any of the stadium chatter in dicta.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Shwafta
  • Sticky
NYCFC Survivor [2024 Edition] General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
471
Shwafta
Shwafta
LionNYC
Tomás Romero [Goalkeeper]
Replies
2
Views
1,253
KevinJRogers
KevinJRogers
LionNYC
Malachi Jones [Forward]
2 3
Replies
43
Views
3,532
CCMore
CCMore
LionNYC
Julián Fernández [Forward]
Replies
13
Views
2,063
LionNYC
LionNYC
LionNYC
Alonso Martínez [Forward]
Replies
1
Views
1,352
GratefulDawg
GratefulDawg
Back
Top