Stadium Discussion

[Taurus]

According to the basic 7-Line info page, express service is only during rush hour in the expected direction. But,

The MTA Is Your Ride to All Yankees and Mets Home Games

"The

train’s Mets-Willets Point station is right in front of Citi Field on Roosevelt Avenue near 126th Street. Fans can always take either the local or the express

to reach Mets-Willets Point. After weeknight and weekend games, New York City Transit provides special super-express

trains timed to depart after the last out. After leaving the game, these trains make only six stops – 61 St-Woodside, Queensboro Plaza, Court Square, 42 St-Grand Central, 5 Av-Bryant Park, and Times Square-42 St."

According to this, Mets games get special super-express trains back to Manhattan when games end. It also says fans can "always take either the local or express" to get to the game.

I'm pretty sure that for Mets games, and some other events, they run express service on weekends.

Also hoping the MTA can provide more frequent service to the LIRR Mets-Willets stop. Would be great if they can also revamp that stop. (Of course they would haev to remame is as well. City Point? NYCFC-Willets???etc.)

 

[Gotham Gator]

So I found the press release that went out about the Willet's Point development and there's a few interesting things to note. First, here's the bullet points from the release:



So it looks like Related will be covering the remediation and it won't be done until late 2020. That's certainly a bit later than we hoped, but at least it's a known factor. Secondly, and probably more importantly, the press release is written as a not very subtle jab at the Bloomberg-era plan, and how he got more benefit for the city. That's exactly what de Blasio was going to need politically to make a stadium project more palatable. If they already feel like they're getting some of that with the deal even before NYCFC is potentially brought in that could mean that they won't feel the same need to hold CFG over a barrel. That, of course, doesn't mean that CFG won't have to contribute, but the ask of them may well be less than it might have been before (or perhaps it could even be covered already in this agreement and it hasn't been bought to light yet).

This is good stuff.

It makes me wonder about some of the things that remain unsaid. For example, 6 of the 23 acres are being leased long term by the city. Who controls the other 17 acres? If Related is doing all the remediation, it seems difficult to believe they don't control anything.

 

[Taurus]

The only complaint is that you won't have a view of the city

How about air traffic noise? Any issue with that? Maybe it was just me, but attending the match a Citifield it was quite noticeable and frequent. Maybe we need Dinkins again to divert the take-off and arrival patterns like he did for the US Open.

 

[Seth]

How about air traffic noise? Any issue with that? Maybe it was just me, but attending the match a Citifield it was quite noticeable and frequent. Maybe we need Dinkins again to divert the take-off and arrival patterns like he did for the US Open.

That's part of the local charm.

 

[Taurus]

I am a new poster and I haven't seen it address, but I am just curious if someone has an opinion on this. I could be wrong but it doesn't appear that the proposed site will have parking for the fans. So any fans driving would have to park at CitiField. I wonder if the Mets will require then our games to not fall within 2 hrs of opening pitch. I.e. if the Mets have a 1 pm game then NYCFC cant start until 3pm. Or a 7pm baseball game will require a 5pm match. I knew this was a sticking point with the Giants/Jets and the American Dream Mall/Xanadu.

I am guessing the Westcher/Rockland/Orange County fans will be driving so there will be an influx of drivers compared to YS who has the Metro North.

MetroNorth to Grand Central, hop on the 7 train?

 

[Gotham Gator]

You're assuming the Mets have any fans that go to the games! But seriously, you're right. They will have to stagger start times. That should be our biggest worry.

The Mets manage to co-exist with the USTA for 2 weeks every year - although typically parking for the US Open shifts to fields in Flushing Park rather than the Mets parking lots when there is baseball in town. I would imagine that something similar would apply when we are playing at the same time as the Mets.

Some of the Mets parking is outside Flushing Park and closer to the Iron Triangle anyway, so maybe it would be easier to let us use those spots.

 

[adam]

Also hoping the MTA can provide more frequent service to the LIRR Mets-Willets stop. Would be great if they can also revamp that stop. (Of course they would haev to remame is as well. City Point? NYCFC-Willets???etc.)

Aren't they planning that, with also extending the air train to the area?

https://ny.curbed.com/2017/11/17/16668718/laguardia-airport-airtrain-funding-cuomo-port-authority

 

[Taurus]

Well some sections could get remediated first. I'm not a environmental engineer, but I've worked with a few. With the high water table, they basically have dig out all the contaminated dirt, build a giant concrete basin, then fill the basin with clean dirt. Then build on that. So, even if it took till the end of 2020 to remediate all of the land in WP, they could remediate the stadium section (pending approval) sooner than that.

Sounds like a plan, but I would think they remmediate the housing first. PR

 

[adam]

MetroNorth to Grand Central, hop on the 7 train?

Way down the line, but eventually MetroNorth to Grand Central to LIRR might be faster (and more expensive).

 

[413Blue]

How about air traffic noise? Any issue with that? Maybe it was just me, but attending the match a Citifield it was quite noticeable and frequent. Maybe we need Dinkins again to divert the take-off and arrival patterns like he did for the US Open.

The good part is that we probably won't have to compete with a luxury housing developer! Airplane noise, highways, train tracks, baseball and tennis traffic, all right next to subsidized housing! No high end developer is going to build at this site!

The other competitors would have been something such as an Amazon rapid distribution warehouse, like one of the multi-level facilities we're going to start seeing a ton of soon. That would probably promise many more jobs, tax revenue, and total economic impact, but would not be ideal next to a newly developed residential neighborhood.

Who else might want to develop this site if it were to go to an open bid?

 

[Kjbert]

How about air traffic noise? Any issue with that? Maybe it was just me, but attending the match a Citifield it was quite noticeable and frequent. Maybe we need Dinkins again to divert the take-off and arrival patterns like he did for the US Open.

Stadium built below grade with a 70% covered roof would block out most of the noise.

Actually, it would probably keep more noise IN, thus lessening any impact. You hear nothing at RBA from nearby EWR

 

[FredMertz]

Pork Buns!!??? Main Street is like the kosher capital of the world!! Try Shimon's Pizza, or Burger Nosh

Same street, different nabe!

Stadium built below grade with a 70% covered roof would block out most of the noise.

Actually, it would probably keep more noise IN, thus lessening any impact. You hear nothing at RBA from nearby EWR

It's partpof the charm and why the supporters section will be called, "The Hangar" or "The Tarmac".

 

[Jon]

Stadium built below grade with a 70% covered roof would block out most of the noise.

Actually, it would probably keep more noise IN, thus lessening any impact. You hear nothing at RBA from nearby EWR

Is this even possible? I would think the water table is so high in that area.

 

[Kjbert]

Is this even possible? I would think the water table is so high in that area.

You could do it. I have no clue what the cost would be involved in all of that.

 

[Seth]

Stadium built below grade with a 70% covered roof would block out most of the noise.

Actually, it would probably keep more noise IN, thus lessening any impact. You hear nothing at RBA from nearby EWR

While I like the idea I'm not sure it makes sense. I mean, I've enjoyed the planes overhead for decades at Mets games so surely we can handle it. Wouldn't mind a roof for those early March games of course although that adds to the cost. And while EWR isn't all that far from RBA it's not anywhere near as close as LGA is. Shea was practically built at the end of the main runway, after all.

And I'd actually propose building the stadium *above* ground, mostly to increase parking capacity but also to avert rising sea levels.

 

[kuyakew]

Airplane noise is not a big deal during Mets games or the Open. Don't really think it'll be a big issue.

 

[413Blue]

While I like the idea I'm not sure it makes sense. I mean, I've enjoyed the planes overhead for decades at Mets games so surely we can handle it. Wouldn't mind a roof for those early March games of course although that adds to the cost. And while EWR isn't all that far from RBA it's not anywhere near as close as LGA is. Shea was practically built at the end of the main runway, after all.

And I'd actually propose building the stadium *above* ground, mostly to increase parking capacity but also to avert rising sea levels.

I'd have to imagine the NYPD and Homeland would strongly discourage parking under parts of the stadium. I believe MLB still bans it if I'm not mistaken.

From what I understand, it's actually cheaper to dig into the ground than it is to build a stadium completely above ground. Not sure if the remediation and proximity to water changes that on this site.

 

[sbrylski]

Airplane noise is not a big deal during Mets games or the Open. Don't really think it'll be a big issue.

They could schedule an Etihad Airways flyover before every game.

 

[snugglefarts]

And I'd actually propose building the stadium *above* ground, mostly to increase parking capacity but also to avert rising sea levels.

An underwater stadium sounds cool, though.

 

[adam]

An underwater stadium sounds cool, though.

Please refer to page 53 for that discussion.