Heh - that's actually why we're thinking about Westchester. Except that we want to be farther from certain family members...
Stadium Discussion
- Thread starter Gene
- Start date
Heh - that's actually why we're thinking about Westchester. Except that we want to be farther from certain family members...
Good stuff. I agree with your assessment. The opinion (a 5-1 majority) essentially kills the ability of the Wilpons to build a mall in the park to subsidize the planned construction in Willets Point. The only option left for the Wilpons is to get a bill passed by the legislature.
That leaves the question of whether we can build a stadium there. The 1961 legislation was focused on getting a baseball stadium built to attract a new major league team. Reading through the opinion, there is helpful language (the use of plurals and phrases like "from time to time") that suggest the approval is limited neither to Shea Stadium itself nor to a single stadium at a time. Still, as mgarbowski has pointed out, there is substantial ambiguity.
At minimum, any plan we pursue should not only allow for our stadium, but should convert some meaningful amount of asphalt back to real parkland. There is such an expanse of flat parking lot around CitiField, that it should be easy to build Etihad Stadium, throw in a couple acres of grass and put the parking in garages. This would help blunt community opposition and make it easier for the judges to rule in our favor.
That leaves Willets Point. The Wilpons aren't going to build there without the subsidy they were expecting from a mall - at least not while including the affordable housing that is essential for this mayor to support the bid. Our hope would be that CFG can somehow provide that subsidy in a deal to build a stadium in the same spot (somewhere in the CitiField parking). The other possibility is that someone else agrees to take on Willets Point, and our stadium becomes an anchor of that development. The problem with that is it is unlikely anything gets built in Willets Point by someone not named Wilpon until 2025-2030.
Being near the airport, we could really turn the site into a home field advantage. If the other team is awarded a PK, the Asst coach radios the tower to have a plane diverted above us at 1000ft just as the guy is running up to kick.
It looks like you might be able to re-route those tracks along the creek rather than bury them, which is probably a cheaper solution.
Not sure about what rights the Wilpons' have. I was just referring to the fact that the site is just a mess. The developer will have to clear out all the existing buildings and their occupants. There is then substantial environmental remediation that will take a long time. Then installation of infrastructure that isn't there (sewer, etc). Finally, construction can begin - and that will be subject to all the usual planning approvals, potential lawsuits, etc. The court opinion even mentioned that the current Wilpon plan wasn't supposed to be fully built until 2026.
Hopefully the CFG team is already inviting Francisco Moya, Julissa Ferreras and Bill DeBlasio out for a nice dinner to discuss their plans.
Don't be surprised if DeBlasio decides to tie his support for a stadium to our bankrolling the enviro remediation of the greater area. If that happens, the cost and timeline may become prohibitive. But we can hope...
I think the issue the scope in time for construction, but the scope of type of construction. Today's decision clearly focuses on the appurtenant facilities language of the statute. I repeat my quote from earlier:
A new private soccer stadium is not "appurtenant" to a baseball stadium. More likely, it's a new development.
Appurtenant is how my Brooklyn born mother says the thing you live in that isn't a house.
It is a different stadium for sure. The question is whether the legislation allows just the one stadium or more than one. I don't think it is entirely clear, but I haven't read the statute itself.
The statute is vague on that point, but that's because it implicitly assumes one stadium (Shea) that can be used for multiple sports. It just says "a stadium" and "the stadium" throughout - so as this provision has now been litigated, it would be wise for them (if they're interested in the site) to ask the state to clarify that the site as a whole is designed with sports and related activities in mind and that multiple stadiums are permissible to that end. I'm sure that if they show that they're willing to help fund the environmental remediation/fund the park conservancy/otherwise invest in the area, they could probably get it through.
I hear Dante got a report from CFG to pester his father about it.
Not updated recently but I did one this past January (about 60 pages back):Seth Does this merit an updated rendering on this location? We are all salivating.
http://nycfcforums.com/index.php?threads/stadium-discussion.21/page-383#post-180473
Ive posted this before. But just so people understand where Willets West is. And Willits Point is the area East of Citi Field. Either one gives us plenty of room. Either one allows for parkland expansion.
Actually, I just remembered that the Wilpons already pitched the city on bringing in NYCFC in the past (the city turned down the offer) so they may still be willing to cut us in.
With the current willets west deal dead, couldn't we attempt legislative action and a deal with the state/city without needing to involve the Wilpon's? Do the Wilpons have right of first refusal or some other leverage that prevents us from going directly to the state and city to repurpose Willets West?
As far as I know they have no formal claims over the site. It's more that they're a large interest with a lot of relationships at the city and state level that could jeopardize a stadium deal if they really wanted to kill it. MSG did the same thing with the proposed West Side Stadium back in 2005.
