Stadium Discussion
- Thread starter Gene
- Start date
https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2018/07/11/report-new-york-city-fc-exploring-stadium-site-bronx
is this really required?
is this really required?
The post to MLSsoccer.com, I mean. What's the point of announcing something like this (which we don't even know how true it is- it even states so in the post how "NYCFC are again exploring a site that broke up 5 years ago". Like, the post has 0 purpose except to fuel a fire that might not even exist. It's basically this stadium thread, but on the MLSsoccer website.
...unless... this means it's happening? :3
Are you new to mlssoccer.com?
Do you think the NYT article has a purpose? Because the MLS bit is basically a reprint for anyone who didn’t see it. Simple and direct.
Absolutely not, but I thought it was worth mentioning how they always post stupid shit like that. But I guess everyone else knows that...
To the extent it means anything, I think it means MLS and NYCFC don’t think the NYT report hurts their chances, so it’s OK to repeat it.
I'll make a new one today. That first one was so long ago that it's not the same format as the others. Just want to make sure I have it right seeing as how this'll be the last one I'll need to do, of course.Seth can you repost RedBull Arena over that site again please? Thank you.
Liked just for the Whit Stillman reference.
This thing seems very real.
Think back to the Harlem Yards leak. The Club said it was not an active site. That was in many ways negative, but it was also a positive because the Club said they had other sites that were active. That meant there are other sites at a more advanced stage than having put in a proposal complete with renderings and 100 pages of detail. That's pretty active.
This has to be one of those sites.
I like our chances here. Remember that the original deal was scuttled because Fucking DeBlasio didn't like that we weren't paying off the debt that the parking garage owed to the City and the bondholders. Fast forward 4.5 years, and the parking facilities are now owned by the bondholders and the City (or so it implies in the article). It's highly doubtful they're running a sufficient profit, notwithstanding the insane price hikes for guys like me schlepping in from Westchester.
The new plan with the developer provides three important improvements over the original plan.
Think back to the Harlem Yards leak. The Club said it was not an active site. That was in many ways negative, but it was also a positive because the Club said they had other sites that were active. That meant there are other sites at a more advanced stage than having put in a proposal complete with renderings and 100 pages of detail. That's pretty active.
This has to be one of those sites.
I like our chances here. Remember that the original deal was scuttled because Fucking DeBlasio didn't like that we weren't paying off the debt that the parking garage owed to the City and the bondholders. Fast forward 4.5 years, and the parking facilities are now owned by the bondholders and the City (or so it implies in the article). It's highly doubtful they're running a sufficient profit, notwithstanding the insane price hikes for guys like me schlepping in from Westchester.
The new plan with the developer provides three important improvements over the original plan.
- It gives some financial return to the City and bondholders (presumably, there is a purchase price for the garage and the lots by the river).
- It should improve the financial performance of the remaining garages by taking so much parking off the market.
- It will subsidize affordable housing.
In my family we call him "You suck, DeBlasio."
And it still allows him to get what he was hoping for with the site from the beginning, which is to say "I got more than Bloomberg did!"
So the presumed plan would either close or build over 153rd Street to incorporate both GAL and the 153rd Street garage that are across the street from each other, right? I can't make sense of it otherwise. And the Ruppert garage down the block and closer to the Deegan would be unaffected?
Not enough details yet to say for sure. It sounds like the developer might have acquired additional property around there too. They are proposing a lot of structures to go on not that much land right now.
Similar threads
