Stadium Discussion

What Will Be The Name Of The New Home?

  • Etihad Stadium

    Votes: 4 17.4%
  • Etihad Park

    Votes: 11 47.8%
  • Etihad Field

    Votes: 7 30.4%
  • Etihad Arena

    Votes: 1 4.3%
  • Etihad Bowl

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    23
^Exactly. If we're building in a city, I would think we may have to think along the same lines. Especially if we're going to try to be closer to city (and transit) center. If we're going out to Willets, you can be a bit more liberal with the dimensions.
 
I'd be really interested to hear the # of cars that are parked at/near YS just for NYCFC games. Over 1,000?
Me too. That sounds like a reasonable estimate, maybe even low.

I'd be surprised if it weren't plenty more than that, although maybe that's because I drive. The parking garages certainly aren't full, but that's because there are so many of them. They don't fill up for Yankee games either.

According to a quick web search, there are over 9,000 spaces in the official Yankee Stadium lots operated by Quik Park and many more in other garages and lots. There is also street parking too (which worked out for me one time). I would guess between 1/3 and 1/2 the fans drive, which is 8K-12K for our average game this year. At 3 people per car, that's 3,000 - 4,000 cars.
 
Goodison is really small, 6 1/4 acres. RBA is 8 1/2.
goodisonarea.png

It's impressive they can fit a stadium of that capacity in such as small footprint. Anyone ever been there? I'd be interesting to know how it feels inside, can you tell they really crammed things in? Any obvious compromises?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kjbert and NYCFCfan
It's impressive they can fit a stadium of that capacity in such as small footprint. Anyone ever been there? I'd be interesting to know how it feels inside, can you tell they really crammed things in? Any obvious compromises?
White Hart Lane couldn't have been much bigger and it was also in a tight space. You could definitely tell everything was cramped, then again people were much smaller at the beginning of the 1900's.
 
How many people do you think we could strap to the roof of the stadium like this:
 
With modern US building codes, I think it would be incredibly difficult to replicate those vintage English stadiums. I remember one of the big worries when the Red Sox were looking to build a new Fenway a while back, is that it would have to be much bigger, even with same capacity, to accommodate modern requirements for aisle width, proximity of seats, larger concourses etc. I think the old Yankee Stadium was in the same position, just not as bad.
Basically you can't just rebuild Fenway Park today as it would have like a billion violations. I'm not incredibly familiar with the inner workings of those English stadiums mentioned above, but I have a feeling we would need more space to replicate them.
 
With modern US building codes, I think it would be incredibly difficult to replicate those vintage English stadiums. I remember one of the big worries when the Red Sox were looking to build a new Fenway a while back, is that it would have to be much bigger, even with same capacity, to accommodate modern requirements for aisle width, proximity of seats, larger concourses etc. I think the old Yankee Stadium was in the same position, just not as bad.
Basically you can't just rebuild Fenway Park today as it would have like a billion violations. I'm not incredibly familiar with the inner workings of those English stadiums mentioned above, but I have a feeling we would need more space to replicate them.
This^^^^

The best bet is to build the stands at a steeper angle. It would still be subject to code restrictions of step height, but it'd maximize the dimensions. Take YS for example, the lower tier is barely raked at all and so so flat. Stack those suckers nearly straight up like the mega-stadium in Harry Potter and then we're talking.
 
With modern US building codes, I think it would be incredibly difficult to replicate those vintage English stadiums.

This is a very good point. I don't think there's any way you're going to get a 40K seater into the same footprint. But 25-30K could well be doable. IMO, that's the right size, though admittedly others have argued for a larger stadium.

For those who think we should be aiming for 35K or more, Willets is probably the only realistic (?) spot in the boroughs that's been mentioned that could work. Unless there's some other magic location that we've somehow missed over the last 466 pages.

And Ulrich is onto something. Barclays is steep, probably to maximize capacity given the footprint constraints.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Kjbert
With modern US building codes, I think it would be incredibly difficult to replicate those vintage English stadiums. I remember one of the big worries when the Red Sox were looking to build a new Fenway a while back, is that it would have to be much bigger, even with same capacity, to accommodate modern requirements for aisle width, proximity of seats, larger concourses etc. I think the old Yankee Stadium was in the same position, just not as bad.
Basically you can't just rebuild Fenway Park today as it would have like a billion violations. I'm not incredibly familiar with the inner workings of those English stadiums mentioned above, but I have a feeling we would need more space to replicate them.

It's worth mentioning that the old English stadia were not built with food concourses in mind, and there's few major teams these days who would consider building a stadium without maximising the amount of stall space for as many money-making ventures as possible on the concourses.

It's also worth considering that most of them were built specifically to fit around the land around them, and the majority of them were built right in the middle of housing estates, not industrial areas as they are now. Most of those stadia were basically built to match a very uneven template. These days, no-one is just going to take a land allocation and fit a stadium into it - they would have to work out what they considered their minimum dimensions and then look for land that satisfies that.

Consider the wider angle of some of those:

an-aerial-view-of-goodison-park-and-surrounding-housing-egctep.jpg


the-dell-southampton-eaw638364-3002129.jpg


dundees-two-football-stadiums-dens-park-dundee-football-club-and-tannadice-e5ebtc.jpg
 
This^^^^

The best bet is to build the stands at a steeper angle. It would still be subject to code restrictions of step height, but it'd maximize the dimensions. Take YS for example, the lower tier is barely raked at all and so so flat. Stack those suckers nearly straight up like the mega-stadium in Harry Potter and then we're talking.
Which is what Orlando did in their stadium. Their stands are at about 33 degrees.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kjbert and Ulrich
What is the honest opinion of everyone here on what the stadium capacity actually should be, realistically? Rail seating should be a must for the designated supporters section, it just adds to the atmosphere of the stadium.
 
What is the honest opinion of everyone here on what the stadium capacity actually should be, realistically? Rail seating should be a must for the designated supporters section, it just adds to the atmosphere of the stadium.
35K
 
  • Like
Reactions: NYCFC_JD
I'd go with 28K. Here's why:

Per game attendance,

2017: 22K average.

2016: 23K-38K; 27K average

2015: 20K-48K; 29K average

Without seeing a seasonal adjustment, I'm sure the 22K average will creep higher as summer games take on a larger portion of data set, and as the playoff push heats up. That said, it's reasonable to believe that the average attendance slide that has been seen since 2015 would continue for some period of time, as some of the initial "new franchise" smell wears off. Where does it reach equilibrium? I'm guessing in the 23K-25K range, and a stadium capacity in the 27K or 28K range makes a lot of sense. Enough for the stadium to seem largely full, which makes the in-game experience and home-field advantage better. It also creates a sense of scarcity for the tix, which adds to the cachet and makes the secondary ticket market hum (which in turn makes life easier on the season ticket base and encourages them to stay on board).

I think overbuilding, and having a stadium that runs 1/3 empty with frequency is a big risk. It makes it harder for season ticket holders to recoup their investment on games they miss, and encourages them to drop their subscription and pay per game when they can make it. Let us have the problem of running near capacity and being a hard ticket to get, IMO.