ZYanksRule
Registered
Maybe I'm just being optimistic right now, but it's starting to feel like just a matter of time before it's made official. It certainly seems to me like this is turning into a train rolling downhill.
Stadium Discussion
- Thread starter Gene
- Start date
Maybe I'm just being optimistic right now, but it's starting to feel like just a matter of time before it's made official. It certainly seems to me like this is turning into a train rolling downhill.
Wiley and Morales are the only two that are opposed to a stadium project. https://projects.thecity.nyc/meet-your-mayor/borough.html
More like Jackson Strong to Quite Strong!
I don’t think either of them is opposed to a stadium per se but more that they’re against public funding of a stadium. And please, I’d much prefer folks using their five mayoral picks based on who’d be best for the city rather than eliminating candidates based on this one more or less unimportant issue. I mean sure, the stadium matters to us of course but a mayoral race is much more about schools, sanitation, infrastructure, and other basic governance concerns. Please pick a mayor for the whole city of almost 8 1/2 million people and not one for just us 10 or 20,000 soccer fans.
The response from that link seems to suggest that they are against it. There was another response that was basically a “yes, if no public subsidies” which most candidates fell under.
I generally agree that the election should be about basic issues and governing capability foremost. I also think there is probably a very high correlation between Against A Stadium In All Circumstances and Bad For The City.
Aka "Appropriately pragmatic" vs "dangerously idealistic"
If you are flatly opposed to a stadium project in general, you certainly fall into the second category, which should scare voters.
upstatefan
Registered
If it’s anyplace but NYC you know that RB fans will never let us live it down. But still, securing a parcel in the city has been a nightmare, I vote for the Island. My in laws are in Long Island, great area.
upstatefan
Registered
When I think of the Giants, Jets, Red Bulls and so many other professional teams that had to settle building stadiums just outside of the city they represent, it makes me think that it may never get done. Personally I think ownership will have to settle and build outside of the five boroughs. As long as it’s still in NYS, it shouldn’t be that big of a deal. Being in the city would be perfect for so many reasons obviously, but it seems like an impossible task.
it feels like the pandemic was the best thing long term for our stadium chances
We've gone over this ground before (not surprising in a 965 page thread) and I even wrote some of the posts. But you're right, the history is terrible. Since the 1920s this is the sum total of new stadiums/arenas built in the city, not including onsite rebuilds or land swaps across the street (ie new YS and Citi):
1964 Shea
1968 MSG 4
2012 Barclays
Maybe add Lincoln Center in 1969 which is not sports but did raze a few square blocks for a new performance center. That's it, over nearly a full century. Shea happened because the city had just chased away 2 teams in what was then the country's biggest team sport. MSG 4 led to massive new land use restrictions, including but not limited to Landmark laws, that made everything harder going forward. Barclays took several years on a core location that was undeveloped for decades, had the full support of the Mayor, and still had to be massively scaled back.
But with all that, I think it is fair to think this is different for 2 reasons: (1) as far as we know NYCFC not only seeks zero subsidies but even expects to spend money for stuff it does not need to placate pols and community groups, and (2) they seem to have found a spot that will not require eminent domain (though I'm not sure a deal with the elevator factory is done yet). Add in a city and real estate market desperate for economic activity coming back from lockdown and I think this has a decent chance of happening.
Last edited:
Brooklyn Blue
Registered
Also A) not in Manhattan and B) not actively opposed by a person or group with an existing venue. One of the primary reasons the west side stadium fell through for the Giants/Jets was opposition from Dolan and MSG who wanted to maintain status as a primary event space in Manhattan. The current proposal has no opposition (and possible support) from the Yankees.
I'm still confused by the Red Bull reference. I was a MetroStars inaugural season ticket holder and I don't ever recall at any point hearing any discussion of an NYC stadium.
upstatefan
Registered
I’m just assuming they desired to play in NY but couldn’t. It’s a logical assumption given their name. I remember that they were the NY/ NJ MetroStars, or something like. I doubt NJ was their first choice.
I actually feel more confident than previous years that they’ll get it done in the city
They were born in a time when NJ was one of the country's top soccer hot spots. An unusually large number of the '90 and '94 World Cup teams were from the area and Kearny (Ramos, Harkes & Meola) was known as Soccer Town USA.
SOCCERTOWN USA--AN AMERICAN SOCCER DOCUMENTARY - YouTube
I think they were very happy to be in NJ and thought that was the best place for them. And it would have been if they hadn't picked such a hard to get to location for such a great stadium.
I have to find it, but I swear to God, back in the day the original owners of Metro wanted to essentially split the team into a NYC-centric team and a NJ-centric team, but failed in NYC and later sold.
Am I the only one that’s not blown away by RBA?
When you're sitting in your seats the place is great. Anything outside of that is garbage. The concourse is dangerously narrow. If you've ever been there for a match that's 100% sold out (USMNT, USWNT, Derby) it's almost impossible to walk around pre-match or at halftime. The lines are ridiculously long for concessions, and the parking situation is horrible. But again, as a place to watch an actual match, it's great.
Similar threads
