Stadium Discussion

[adam]

Good question. She was talking about doing it on the 35 acres of city-owned land. Would love a map of that area

Here you go.

http://nycfcforums.com/index.php?threads/stadium-discussion.21/page-448#post-201163

City bought a lot of the land East of City Field. It's full of chop shops and roads with insane pot holes, and no real utility infrastructure, like plumbing running into the area. Half the shops have been purchased by the NYCEDC and are closed down (whole blocks are boarded up), the other half are still operating.

West of Citi Field is owned by Sterling Equities/Related, it's the parking lot that was planned for a mall, but shot down by the courts.

 

[Gotham Gator]

Really looking forward to seeing Atlanta's new stadium on Sunday's game. They are only opening up 41,000 seats for that one, but are going to make all 71,000 available for two games later this month - Orlando and Toronto.

http://www.ajc.com/sports/how-merce...signed-for-soccer-too/e8EK5Hsx4bf5rMwoPcarQL/

http://www.ajc.com/sports/atlanta-u...mercedes-benz-stadium/QHD3QGPvJ4YDi9k7aowSxI/

 

[Seth]

What page was Willets West? I'm not sure which site Melinda was referring to. Though the city did buy up most of Willets Point (which you pictured) through the NYCEDC over the last couple years. I mean either way it fits with plenty of room.

I'm not sure I've ever understood the arguments about Willets West. The people suing say it will take parkland and use it for business purposes, but the reality is that the parkland in question is the Citi Field parking lot. Whether we want a giant mall there is most certainly a question, but arguing that it "destroys" parkland seems, well, not exactly reality-based (although it certainly may be a valid legal question). Here's the site plan:

and here's what's there today:

I dunno, I just don't see any loss of parkland. So anyways, that's why I've never done a Willets West post before as it's just the Citi Field parking lot.

ETA: Here's a link to the article where I got the image -
http://awalkintheparknyc.blogspot.com/2014/08/judge-dismisses-flushing-meadows-park.html

 

[Seth]

West of Citi Field is owned by Sterling Equities/Related, it's the parking lot that was planned for a mall, but shot down by the courts.

I think that's the core of the issue as I believe that land is *not* owned by Sterling but is actually still legally part of the park. I think they're using it based on the early Shea Stadium rules but don't own it.

 

[adam]

I'm not sure I've ever understood the arguments about Willets West. The people suing say it will take parkland and use it for business purposes, but the reality is that the parkland in question is the Citi Field parking lot. Whether we want a giant mall there is most certainly a question, but arguing that it "destroys" parkland seems, well, not exactly reality-based (although it certainly may be a valid legal question). Here's the site plan:

and here's what's there today:

I dunno, I just don't see any loss of parkland. So anyways, that's why I've never done a Willets West post before as it's just the Citi Field parking lot.

I think that's the core of the issue as I believe that land is *not* owned by Sterling but is actually still legally part of the park. I think they're using it based on the early Shea Stadium rules but don't own it.

Yup, an attorney can chime in. But I think you're right. It was gifted by the city for the stadium or for use by the stadium. The parking lot helps the stadium. And the way the law was written it must be used for a stadium or need Albany to amend the law made for it. Mall use or housing doesn't count as a stadium. But a SSS does, no legislation necessary

 

[NickFromAstoria]

I think that's the core of the issue as I believe that land is *not* owned by Sterling but is actually still legally part of the park. I think they're using it based on the early Shea Stadium rules but don't own it.

Yup, you summed up the legal issues pretty well actually. Legally the parking lot is still considered part of Flushing Meadows, so it must be "alienated" by the state legislature to be made available for other use. The mall was killed by the courts because the provision of the city Administrative Code that covers it mentions only that it can be used for a stadium, and its appurtenances etc., etc. for the purposes of recreation, commerce, and so on. Sterling and the city tried to sneak the mall in under the "for the purposes of commerce and so on" clause but the Court of Appeals rejected that argument.

 

[mgarbowski]

Yup, an attorney can chime in. But I think you're right. It was gifted by the city for the stadium or for use by the stadium. The parking lot helps the stadium. And the way the law was written it must be used for a stadium or need Albany to amend the law made for it. Mall use or housing doesn't count as a stadium. But a SSS does, no legislation necessary

Exactly. It was parkland, which can only be converted under special legislation. The law in question allowed it to be converted subject to limitations and anything not related to a stadium is a violation. If they don't need it for the stadium, they either have to just keep it as a big waste, convert it back to park, or get new legislation.

 

[NickFromAstoria]

If they don't need it for the stadium, they either have to just keep it as a big waste, convert it back to park, or get new legislation.

Yup, that gets at the big issue going forward - is the Shea Stadium provision, since it was passed by the state legislature, sufficient to cover Etihad Field? You might be able to make that legal argument, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to bet a $250 million project on it, so getting Albany to amend that provision for NYCFC would be a critical step to ensure that a Willet's West project is as unencumbered by legal questions as possible.

 

[sbrylski]

It's zoned for a stadium (singular) or buildings ancillary to a stadium. I don't know about ownership. There's no reason it can't be rezoned though, the Mets just tried to steamroll a mall thru and were predictably shot down. Going thru the proper channels, I don't know why we couldn't get Willet's West (or East) approved with appropriate lobbying and community investments.

 

[sbrylski]

I think season ticket holders walk through the stadium in calendar year 2022. That's my thinking.

Year minimum for approvals, year minimum for site prep, two years minimum for stadium construction. Could easily be two years for approval and three years for site prep if it's Willet's East.

Even if made public in December, I'd gamble on 2024-25 to have safe expectations.

 

[Gotham Gator]

WILLET'S POINT.

In Maps and Pictures

 

[Gotham Gator]

Good question. She was talking about doing it on the 35 acres of city-owned land. Would love a map of that area

There are two areas to consider.

• The Willets Point Redevelopment Zone, which is a 42 acre site next to Citi Field that is very industrial, highly polluted and slated for redevelopment. The city owns most of it at this point. It's the triangular area next to Citi Field on most maps. It is nicknamed the Iron Triangle (would be great to work that into Club nicknames if we ever move there).
• The Parking Lots next to Citi Field - sometimes called Willets West. The Wilpons, who own the Mets and Sterling Properties, wanted to build a shopping mall here to subsidize their project in the Willets Point Redevelopment Zone. As mentioned, the courts have ruled that is not allowed under state law.

The two general possibilities are: (1) that the Club would build a stadium in Willets West, and would make a large payment for the right to do so that would provide the subsidy that the mall was supposed to and (2) that our stadium is included in the redevelopment zone. Option #2 would require major changes to the redevelopment plans, which seem likely at this point anyway.

What Borough President Katz was suggesting was putting our stadium in the Redevelopment Zone, along with affordable housing.

 

[Gotham Gator]

Yup, you summed up the legal issues pretty well actually. Legally the parking lot is still considered part of Flushing Meadows, so it must be "alienated" by the state legislature to be made available for other use. The mall was killed by the courts because the provision of the city Administrative Code that covers it mentions only that it can be used for a stadium, and its appurtenances etc., etc. for the purposes of recreation, commerce, and so on. Sterling and the city tried to sneak the mall in under the "for the purposes of commerce and so on" clause but the Court of Appeals rejected that argument.

Exactly. It was parkland, which can only be converted under special legislation. The law in question allowed it to be converted subject to limitations and anything not related to a stadium is a violation. If they don't need it for the stadium, they either have to just keep it as a big waste, convert it back to park, or get new legislation.

The parking lots themselves are a kind of abomination. They take up huge amounts of space in a public park. You could shrink them to 1/3 their size easily by putting in parking garages and thereby free up land for all kinds of better uses - playing fields, open space, an NYCFC stadium, or a combination of all 3. Every time I walk through those lots they kind of piss me off. The city really did a bad job when it negotiated the deals on CitiField and Yankee Stadium.

 

[Ulrich]

Year minimum for approvals, year minimum for site prep, two years minimum for stadium construction. Could easily be two years for approval and three years for site prep if it's Willet's East.

Even if made public in December, I'd gamble on 2024-25 to have safe expectations.

Site prep could go faster depending on how large of a crew is working it and how many shifts of the three/day they populate. Two years is about right for the actual construction, but even that could be accelerated with three shifts.

If it was me with a massive piggybank, and no residential neighbors across the street, and a crappy rental arrangement, I'd foot the bill to work 24/7 with three shifts and the related upcharges on overnight manpower. It'd be a short term hit on cost, but getting into a new stadium faster, with the associated income from concessions/no rent, and more importantly the cache of a stadium to draw new fans, would make it worth it.

 

[Kjbert]

Does anyone know why they went with parking lots and not garages? Cheaper I assume?

 

[Gotham Gator]

The downside is that the area requires substantial environmental remediation and lacks even minimum infrastructure (e.g. sewers, drainage, etc.).

Getting those dealt with could take years, and that's on top of all the approvals that would be needed for the larger plan.

 

[EganSoccerWords]

Sometimes this thread be like:

If you are saying this thread should be made into a movie and Broadway show, I am in agreement.

 

[NickA]

Send me you bank account and routing numbers and I'll deposit it right away.

Easy there Craig Carton

 

[Ulrich]

Easy there Craig Carton

Barrister Ulrich am I

 

[Shawn Ryu]

So instead of relocating the game to Hartford, MLS could not have rescheduled to a date that Citi Field at the very least, was available?