Stadium Discussion
- Thread starter Gene
- Start date
Stadium done at Belmont before the end of next season (wishful thinking I am sure on the next season part) or no real stadium news in NYC for 10 years... and you guys are pissed about Belmont. Beggars can't be choosers. Belmont is a much better option than no stadium at all. Shit, the parking lot would likely be in Queens.
Let me ask what you would rather, a beautiful stadium in Belmont by 2019 season, or a stadium in Bronx or Manhattan in 2027.
Let me ask what you would rather, a beautiful stadium in Belmont by 2019 season, or a stadium in Bronx or Manhattan in 2027.
The second option, without question.
100%. There are also three (well, two really) other boroughs to choose from too.
As a season ticket holder? The second option. As a fan, probably the first. Putting the stadium at Belmont wouldn't mean I was no longer a fan. I'm in for the long haul. But I wouldn't keep my seats. Chances I ever attended a non-playoff match would be 50/50
Crazy talk to me, but I don't live in NYC so my opinion is obviously coming from a very different experience.
The stadium is a project that should last 40,60,100 years. Which end of the next decade it gets done for us is much less important than your grandchildren watching professional soccer in the right place in the five boroughs
Can't speak for everyone here, but I started supporting the team in significant part because calling itself New York City Football Club signified something beyond merely "we're not the Red Bulls" for me. This is supposed to be a club that is rooted in the five boroughs. We certainly don't want to exclude anyone outside of New York City (I'm a native upstater and there's a possibility that I may even leave the city again in the near future) but the heart is supposed to be the urban jungle. And the way that the history of the city, as well as how soccer in this country, have played out over the last half century shows why this is significant, since each had periods where the focus was on the suburbs, and the city was an afterthought. Think, for example, about the Giants and Dodgers leaving town, or FORD TO CITY: DROP DEAD. Sure, these are now decades past us, but they still linger in our cultural memory.
Not only that, but for most of MLS' existence, the focus was on bringing in upper middle class suburban families to the games. A little while back Dan Dickinson shared some interesting material on Twitter that showed that, contrary to the popular wisdom, settling in NYC was never really that important for the MetroStars, because they wanted to ensure easy driving access for suburbanites (which is why being near the junctions of 95, 280, and 78 was important for them more so than mass transit access). In fact, the original NY2 proposal was for a team in eastern Queens/western Nassau, so if Belmont were to become our site, it would in a sense be simply returning to where it all started for MLS. It would come, however, at the expense of losing the connection with the city, due to the sheer fact that there are probably a lot of folks who aren't going to spend $15 and an additional hour to get to the LIRR to get out to Belmont from Corona, or the south Bronx.
So TL;DR: Maybe calling it "City" is simply just brand synergy to CFG and MLS, but it means a little more to some of us. And if they see it as merely a brand, then that's going to affect how many of us see the club. Will I still come to games? Probably. Will I still be as emotionally and financially invested as I am now? Not in the slightest.
I'd rather have a stadium at the Aqueduct than at Belmont. Especially if the MTA reactivates the defunct Rockaway line the trip there for we would be quick.
Well, to continue with my sarcasm, how about bringing in the yankees ground crew and getting some really large NYCFC logos to lay over the dirt?
If it's not going to be in the boroughs, we can probably find better options than Belmont.
?? Such as? It's as close to actual NYC as possible and could be acquired and completed sooner than any other site. It has decent transport including some mass transit. I can't see how any non-NYC site beats that combination. There has been very limited talk of some spots in Yonkers or Mount Vernon which are similarly close, but those are nowhere near as realistic or likely to happen as Belmont. I really doubt there is a better non-NYC alternative.Which does not mean I'm advocating for it, but if they were to go outside NYC, this is the place to do it, I think.
Aqueduct certainly wouldn't be ideal - but at least it's on a subway line. That alone makes it better. (and ugh, don't get me started on the Rockaway line...)
No. It can't be better if you have to cross water to get there from the city. That just adds costs and bottlenecks. Westchester and Nassau can all be reached by land. That you might have to cross water within the city before getting to those locations is another issue.
Like I said, I wasn't being literal. Just making a point about putting the stadium outside of the boroughs.
Does anyone know if the content of the bids will be public? Because I'm thinking that if NYCFC bids there will obviously be a shitstorm, and it would be nice to be able to tell if the bid has any obvious poison pills in it, such as "Our bid is contingent on the F Train being extended to within 500 yards of the site within 3 years."
It's a good question - the RFP makes it sound like they may only release the designated developer's proposal.
Yonkers and Westchester County already approached the Club and were told no. So yes, if you are going to build outside the 5 boroughs, there is a MUCH better option. Yonkers is serviced by the Subway, MTA Bus and Metro North. It is also convenient by car from Northern, NJ, Westchester and Fairfield. Depending on where it is built in Yonkers, it is also more convenient from Long Island than the West Side of Manhattan as an example.
