PDA

View Full Version : Proposed Jets Stadium on West Side



NYguy
October 31st, 2002, 10:51 AM
Daily News...

Mayor carrying a torch for new W. Side stadium

By MICHAEL SAUL

Olympics or no Olympics - Mayor Bloomberg still believes a new stadium on Manhattan's West Side could be built.

Bloomberg, who leaves for Colorado Springs tomorrow to deliver the city's final pitch for the 2012 Summer Games, said he favors a massive expansion of the Javits Center complex.

"Our ability to attract conventions here is declining precipitously, and it's a very big worry for us. There are so many jobs involved," Bloomberg said.

"What the actual nature of that would be and whether it would be used for football eight Sundays a year ... it will be part of the Javits Center. And we need to do that regardless."

The U.S. Olympic Committee will choose New York or San Francisco as its nominee on Saturday. The International Olympic Committee will choose the host city in 2005.

NYC2012, the group pursuing the Olympic Games on the city's behalf, has proposed building an Olympic stadium as part of an expanded convention center.

The development of the "West Side Olympic complex" has already begun with the multimillion-dollar commitment to design the extension of the No. 7 subway train, which would serve the area and the proposed Olympic stadium.

Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff, NYC2012's founder, told the Daily News yesterday that construction of the subway extension will begin by mid-2005, regardless of the city's Olympic quest.

Officials with the New York Jets are eager to build a stadium at the West Side site and have talked to the city about how it might be funded. Yesterday, at the NFL owners meeting, the Jets gave a presentation about sponsoring a Super Bowl here.

But not everyone welcomes a West Side stadium. The Clinton Special District Coalition released a document yesterday detailing why a new stadium would hurt the city.

According to the group, a stadium would lead to more than $5 billion in new taxes, a delay or termination of the Second Ave. subway project and further congestion on Manhattan streets.

Doctoroff dismissed the criticism, saying the area surrounding the convention center has suffered from decades of "no development whatsoever."

"It's a wasteland," he said. "There is no there there. It is Manhattan's last frontier."

Meanwhile, the state Olympic Games Commission announced it will sponsor a reception Saturday at the World Financial Center's Winter Garden for various officials and special guests to watch the announcement.

And what if New York loses?

Jennifer Farina, a spokeswoman for Gov. Pataki, exuded confidence. "There is no possibility of that happening," she said.

NYguy
November 4th, 2002, 11:09 AM
NY Times...

In the Excitement of an Olympic Bid, a $1 Billion Stadium

By CHARLES V. BAGLI

COLORADO SPRINGS, Nov. 3 — The latest proposal for an Olympic stadium, a striking glass and steel structure that would sweep down to the edge of the Hudson River, was unveiled Saturday before New York won its bid to be the United States nominee to serve as host city for the 2012 Summer Games.

The billion-dollar stadium complex, to be built above the West Side rail yards in Manhattan, was described to the United States Olympic Committee here by Daniel L. Doctoroff, founder of New York's bid committee, as the most environmentally advanced in the world. It is also the single most controversial element of the New York City bid's $5 billion proposal for new parks, sports complexes, subways and housing.

"The big question mark is the Olympic stadium," said Richard T. Anderson, the president of the New York Building Congress, a trade group that supports the Olympic bid. "The good news is that we can build anything. The real question is political: Is there the political will and public consensus to do it?"

The stadium is opposed by neighborhood groups and the local community board and will almost certainly need an extensive environmental review. Mr. Doctoroff said the 86,000-seat stadium would be paid for largely by the Jets and the National Football League (it would become the Jets' home after the Summer Games end). But under the proposal, taxpayers would pay $500 million or more for a retractable roof and a platform to build the stadium over the rail yards, between 30th and 34th Streets and 11th and 12th Avenues.

"The New York Jets' own study predicts 10,000 more cars in gridlocked Manhattan," said John Fisher, president of the Clinton Special District Coalition, which opposes the plan. "A stadium in Queens would likely cost about one-third as much as one in Manhattan and it would be closer to the team's fan base. Just when Lower Manhattan needs help and the city is scrambling to pay for its firefighters, Mayor Bloomberg and Doctoroff are pushing this boondoggle just for a little glory."

The city's bid committee, NYC2012, does have a backup plan to put the stadium in Flushing, Queens, but Mr. Doctoroff, who is the city's deputy mayor for economic development, dismissed many of the criticisms. He said the stadium would enliven what many people see as a largely barren neighborhood and raise the possibility that the Super Bowl might be held in New York City. The stadium itself, he said, would normally be used for 10 football games a year, on Sundays, when traffic congestion is at its lowest.

The proposal unveiled in Colorado Springs is actually the latest commissioned by L. Jay Cross, president of the Jets, who was part of the New York delegation to the United States Olympic Committee's national meeting this weekend. Mr. Cross has been quietly showing the designs to state and city officials since the spring, and more recently to real estate developers and others. But in deference to the politically charged nature of the proposal, state officials had urged him not to show it publicly until after Election Day on Tuesday.

On Saturday, Mr. Cross declined to discuss details of the stadium.

The original proposal described a venue that would be used for the opening and closing ceremonies of the Games, as well as for track and field events. The stadium would then serve as both a home for the Jets, which now share a stadium in the New Jersey Meadowlands with the Giants, and as an expansion of the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center, just to the north of the rail yards.

But the chairman of the Javits Center, Robert E. Boyle, said he would not consider the stadium a substitute for what he contends is a badly needed expansion of the convention hall. He favored extending the Javits north to 42nd Street, rather than south to the stadium.

So Mr. Cross went back to the drawing board. He largely abandoned the notion that the stadium would become an addition to the Javits Center, although the latest plan does show an underground connection to the center, which would allow the stadium to be used occasionally for events like boat shows.

Mr. Cross also came up with a new look for the stadium, with a nearly transparent exoskeleton of glass and steel and wind turbines and solar panels to provide power. According to people who have seen the plans, the basic stadium (without the platform it would be built on) would cost about $800 million. The Jets and the N.F.L. have told city officials that they would put up more than $400 million toward the cost; they presumably would borrow the rest.

But Mr. Cross's most elaborate plans call for the building to be used, at separate times, as both a 75,000-seat football stadium and a new Madison Square Garden, which could seat 23,000 for basketball and hockey. He has had promising talks with Cablevision, which owns Madison Square Garden, according to several people familiar with the talks.

Cablevision, however, has told city and state officials that it thinks the property tax exemption that Madison Square Garden received in 1985 would remain in place if it moved to the rail yards. Under that exemption, the city has foregone more than $100 million in taxes, even though the Knicks and the Rangers are among the most valuable franchises in their respective sports.

Many residents of the area around the convention center say they are resigned to its expansion, but remain opposed to a stadium, Olympic or otherwise.

"We are not against the Olympics," said Simone Sindin, chairwoman of Community Board 4, "but we are against the siting of the stadium in Manhattan."

NYguy
November 4th, 2002, 11:10 AM
NY Post...


W. SIDE TEEMS WITH TEAMS

By FRANKIE EDOZIEN, KENNETH LOVETT and IKIMULISA SOCKWELL-MASON

The proposed $1.6 billion West Side Stadium could become home to not just the New York Jets, but to the Rangers and Knicks as well, it was revealed yesterday.

David Cornstein, chairman of the New York State Olympic Commission, told The Post that Gov. Pataki isn't sold on building a stadium solely for the Jets, and that the proposal is more ambitious.

"I know the governor feels strongly about this. You cannot build a stadium for 10 days a year," he said. He described a world-class "tri-sport arena" where football, basketball, hockey and concerts would reign supreme year round.

The revelation came a day after the city won the bid to be the U.S. candidate for hosting the 2012 Summer Olympics.

It had previously been thought that after anchoring the Olympics, a new stadium would serve only as a home for the Jets and an extension of the Javits Convention Center.

"This stadium needs something beyond 10 football games a year. It needs a partner . . . one could be a new Madison Square Garden," Cornstein said.

Among the plans percolating around the stadium idea are: a $1.5 billion transit hub including the extension of the No. 7 train, a $1 billion expansion of Javits and a $229 million Olympic park.

The total tally is estimated at $6.5 billion.

"There's no question in my mind that we'll have the support from the private sector and from others to make sure that if we're chosen as the final designee . . . we'll do it well," Pataki said at a Brooklyn campaign stop.

A bulk of the funding of the project is to come from the sale of bonds, including a $1.5 billion transit bond backed by the promise of increased tax collections on future developments in the area. Cornstein said a goal was for the projects to be done with zero taxpayer dollars.

Still, many are not sold.

"I think the idea of West Side stadium is a bad idea," said Councilwoman Christine Quinn (D-Manhattan). She said similar projects have turned out to be "municipal flops."

Mayor Bloomberg said the plans - including the stadium - were not subject to change and include improvements the city needs anyway.

"We didn't just have a p.r. thing [for the Olympics]. We actually put together a plan of how we would do it," he said.

James Sanders (D-Queens) chairman of the City Council's Economic Development Committee, said the needs of New Yorkers are important.

"The council will step up to the plate and ensure sustainable development," he said.

NYatKNIGHT
November 4th, 2002, 12:06 PM
As a Giants fan I am jealous the Jets will have a brand new stadium in Manhattan, but of course I'm all for it. It's high time that New York starts competing again with smaller cities for our country's major sporting events.

NoyokA
November 4th, 2002, 12:56 PM
At Saturday's Olympic Comitee decision, a rendering of the new Jets Stadium was shown for the very first time. I would love to see it, if anyone could get a hold of it. Its a KPF design, and from what I hear spectacular.

NYguy
November 5th, 2002, 08:51 AM
Quote: from Stern on 11:56 am on Nov. 4, 2002
a rendering of the new Jets Stadium was shown for the very first time. I would love to see it, if anyone could get a hold of it. Its a KPF design, and from what I hear spectacular.

The proposal unveiled in Colorado Springs is actually the latest commissioned by L. Jay Cross, president of the Jets, who was part of the New York delegation to the United States Olympic Committee's national meeting this weekend. Mr. Cross has been quietly showing the designs to state and city officials since the spring, and more recently to real estate developers and others. But in deference to the politically charged nature of the proposal, state officials had urged him not to show it publicly until after Election Day on Tuesday.

We should be seeing it real soon...

NYguy
November 5th, 2002, 08:55 AM
Newsday...


Olympic Foes Fighting On

By Bryan Virasami

Civic activists in Queens and Manhattan are vowing to intensify their efforts to keep the 2012 Summer Olympics out of New York unless the city scraps plans for a West Side stadium and major alterations to Flushing Meadows-Corona Park.

West Side civic groups said opposition to the games will be stronger in light of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's newly announced support for a stadium over the West Side rail yards even if the city fails to win the 2012 Summer Games.

"There's absolutely no need for a stadium being in that area," said Robert Trentlyon of Community Board 4 in Manhattan. "I understand putting a stadium in places where you need it for economic development but that's not necessary for the West Side."

Maria Garcia of the Chelsea Owners and Tenants for Neighborhood Preservation said many people now oppose the 2012 Summer Games altogether - not just the stadium.

"The mayor is going to have a real fight on his hands," Garcia said.

On Saturday, the U.S. Olympic Committee voted to back New York City as its candidate to host the 2012 Olympic Games.

The decision means New York will have to compete against several foreign cities to host the games. A final decision will be made in 2005.

While many civic groups are behind the mayor's efforts to bring the games to New York for its potential economic benefits, opponents are marshaling their arguments, citing potential traffic, environmental consequences, terrorism concerns and costs.

While community boards in Flushing and Astoria are overwhelmingly in favor of having Flushing Meadows-Corona Park host rowing, canoeing, tennis, swimming and other events, some activists in Queens read only bad news in the glossy NYC2012 brochures.

Patricia Dolan, president of the Kew Gardens Hills Civic Association, is skeptical that the new construction will benefit residents of the borough.

Some of the plans for Flushing Meadows-Corona Park call for the merging of the two man-made lakes, new soccer fields and a new whitewater rafting facility.

"They [will] come in here and rip the heart out of our park and 17 days later they will pack up and go back to Manhattan," Dolan said.

Asked after Saturday's win about community opposition to the Olympics, Bloomberg downplayed its significance.

"Our objective is to get every single New Yorker to sign on to this and in the end I think we will have 99.9 percent on board," he said.

John Fisher, president of the Clinton Special District Coalition, which represents 34th to 59th streets, said NYC2012 and the mayor are downplaying the real financial cost.

"Nobody has a problem with athletes," Fisher said. "But that's not what we're talking about. It's team real estate, not team New York."

Queens Borough President Helen Marshall said she is jubilant about Saturday's decision but is concerned about how long the park would be closed for repairs.

In addition, she has asked organizers to make sure that the 4,400 apartment units in the planned Olympic Village in Long Island City would be affordable for middle-income New Yorkers.

Evan
November 5th, 2002, 12:33 PM
Don't New Yorkers see the benefits of the Olympics??? *The very fact that New York would actually be building on a large scale and making drastic improvements outweighs the "inconvencies" of the Olympics. *The Olympics will force New York to make drastic improvements. *New York will have to build new subway lines and enhance thier existing lines. *New York will have to make better connections between the buroughs, which benefits everyone in the city, and Long Island. *New York will tremendously improve their athletic facilities, including the construction of new stadium that would house the Jets, so its not like its going to waster. *Also, the Jacob Javitz convention center would be expanded,w hich would help the West Side Area, and bring in more conventions to the City. *I am sure that the city would also invest in new parks and recreation sites with all their refurbishing too. *Finally, an Olympic Village at Queens West would be the first step to the development of Long Island City. *How nice would it be fore the city to stop losting jobs to jersey city and Hoboken. *Those same companies could not go across the East River to Long Island City. *

TAFisher123
November 5th, 2002, 03:36 PM
ok, but dont you start complaining when it costs 3.50 to ride the subway and your paying 15% more in income taxes. *It will be privately funded, ok, then we need 1000 companies each to give 6 million each...nyc is in a huge hole right now, where is 5-7 billion going to come from to build all these things, some projects which be useless (canoeing and rowing facility?) when the olympics leave

NYguy
November 5th, 2002, 04:09 PM
Quote: from Evan on 11:33 am on Nov. 5, 2002
Don't New Yorkers see the benefits of the Olympics??? *The very fact that New York would actually be building on a large scale and making drastic improvements outweighs the "inconvencies" of the Olympics. *

Are you serious? *You can't use logic and common sense to argue with NIMBY'S, who's only response to any kind of change, be it positive or negative, is "NIMBY!" *They have a proud tradition of whining about anything and everything. *Just look at the guy I hilighted in the last article.... "I understand putting a stadium in places where you need it for economic development but that's not necessary for the West Side.".....his statement alone is enough not to take these nuts seriously. *Have you ever seen the West Side?

NYatKNIGHT
November 5th, 2002, 05:36 PM
And unfortunately these NIMBYs are giving the impression that that's the attitude of New Yorkers.

Evan
November 5th, 2002, 05:38 PM
Quote: from NYguy on 3:09 pm on Nov. 5, 2002

Quote: from Evan on 11:33 am on Nov. 5, 2002
Don't New Yorkers see the benefits of the Olympics??? *The very fact that New York would actually be building on a large scale and making drastic improvements outweighs the "inconvencies" of the Olympics. *

Are you serious? *You can't use logic and common sense to argue with NIMBY'S, who's only response to any kind of change, be it positive or negative, is "NIMBY!" *They have a proud tradition of whining about anything and everything. *Just look at the guy I hilighted in the last article.... "I understand putting a stadium in places where you need it for economic development but that's not necessary for the West Side.".....his statement alone is enough not to take these nuts seriously. *Have you ever seen the West Side?


LOL. *What I don't understand is that if these NIMBY's are opposed to change, development, improvement, why don't they move the suburbs. *They can then live in an area where the tallest structures are the phone lines. *

Zoe
November 5th, 2002, 06:31 PM
Because moving to the suburbs would also be a change! *
NIMBY's are partially a by-product of the "everyone is a victim" culture that the media and some politicians helped create in our country today. *What rational, well balanced person would complain about the investment of billions of dollars into the redevelopment of their neighborhood that today is marginally better than trash? *I mean seriously, if they are home owners then their property values will go thru the roof, transportation will improve by leaps and bounds, even the schools in the neighborhood would improve over time. *
These people are living in the center of the capitalist world but want everything to stop changing around them. *This is not a very mature or realistic viewpoint. *Their neighborhood will change, whether it happens from the Olympic bid or in 20 years from now, it will change and there is nothing they can do to stop the hands of time. *Luckily for them it will happen within the next 10 years and they will all get to benefit from this change (this reminds me of my parents making me eat my vegetables).

NoyokA
November 5th, 2002, 06:35 PM
How bout they build the Mets a new stadium, and share it with the Jets?

Evan
November 5th, 2002, 07:51 PM
Quote: from Stern on 5:35 pm on Nov. 5, 2002
How bout they build the Mets a new stadium, and share it with the Jets?

I thought that the Mets were getting a new stadium that would be built in the parking lot of Shea. *

Edward
November 5th, 2002, 11:57 PM
The view of midtown Manhattan (http://www.wirednewyork.com/manhattan/default.htm) and the site of "West Side Olympic complex" from North Hoboken. On the left - construction continues on 10 Times Square (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/10xsq/default.htm). 7 October 2002.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/manhattan/images/manhattan_midtown_hoboken_27oct02.jpg

Edward
November 6th, 2002, 12:09 AM
One more picture taken from the Lincoln Harbor.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/manhattan/images/lincoln_harbor_27oct02.jpg

chris
November 6th, 2002, 02:47 AM
Actually, building a stadium there is a really bad idea. There is no transportation infrastructure to support it, it will most likely cause property value in the neighborhood to go down, not up, and besides, studies have shown that the majority of the target audiance for a sports stadium live in the Queens Brooklyn area anyway. Build it where the fan base is. This is Manhattan. A football stadium on the West side is an atrociously bad idea.

Eugenius
November 6th, 2002, 10:51 AM
Actually, if the stadium is built, then the 7 train will be extended to reach it. *Furthermore, even though the target audience is in Queens and Brooklyn, Manhattan is still the easiest borough to reach from just about everywhere in NY. *Just try going from Queens to Brooklyn using public transportation. *It's a nightmare, and you probably wind up going through Manhattan anyway.

NYatKNIGHT
November 6th, 2002, 12:08 PM
Jet fans from Queens will have an easier time getting to the west side than to the Meadowlands, especially since they'll be able to take a subway there. There are also numerous ferries that already go to Javits, so that's pretty decent transportation, no? In fact, I bet the fan base grows with so many more people being able to take in a Sunday afternoon game.

NYguy
November 6th, 2002, 03:48 PM
Quote: from chris on 1:47 am on Nov. 6, 2002
Actually, building a stadium there is a really bad idea. There is no transportation infrastructure to support it.....and besides, studies have shown that the majority of the target audiance for a sports stadium live in the Queens Brooklyn area anyway.

There is the 7 train extension that was mentioned, which is being done not only for the stadium, but to revitalize that entire neighborhood (Far West Midtown development). Also, the stadium will sit above the LIRR railyards. *If the fanbase from Brooklyn, Queens, and Long Island can make it to Jersey, getting to Manhattan shouldn't be a problem. *And who says residents of Manhattan won't go to a stadium? *Build it, and they will come....

(Edited by NYguy at 2:49 pm on Nov. 6, 2002)

chris
November 6th, 2002, 04:05 PM
Give me a break...

Statistically, two type of people attend live sporting events: families with children (come on son, let's go to the ballpark) and blue collar workers. That's a statistical fact. Single or married without children cosmopolitan professionals don't make a dent. There is a reason why all of our sports stadiums are in one of these areas: That is where the customers are, the burbs or blue collar neighborhoods.

Additionally, I'm not generally a Nimby, you can build whatever residential or commercial towers you want around here, I'm all for it but there are a few things I don't want built blocks away from me: a nuclear power plant, an airport, a prison, or a sports stadium. I own a home in this neighborhood. My life savings is tied up in the value of my home. It is typical that the building of any one of these things will destroy the value of the surrounding residential property. Like others that are opposed to this, in a worst case senario I could lose everything if they build this stupid thing.

Nobody in Manhattan wants it. That is what is so crazy. It is overwhelmingly opposed by the people that actually live here!

If you actually LIVE in Manhattan, or specifically, if you live on the west side then speak-up. If not, then shut the f*ck up. You're just a wanna-be anyway.

(Edited by chris at 3:07 pm on Nov. 6, 2002)

Eugenius
November 6th, 2002, 05:52 PM
As someone who lives in Manhattan (albeit on the East side), I feel I have the right to participate in this debate...

Anyway, if a brand new, architecturally sound, high-tech stadium is built over what is now a barren field of rail lines, and in addition a major subway link is established into what is a grossly underserved area, I don't see how that would bring down property values. *Historically, apartment buildings near subway stops have gone up in value. *Also, a stadium would likely bring along with it a wealth of retailers and restaurants. *That can't be bad as well.

On a different note, I feel that nuclear power plants have unfairly gotten a bad rap. *How can you compare a clean, efficient power plant (less pollution than wind power) to an airport or a prison ;)

NYatKNIGHT
November 6th, 2002, 07:13 PM
I live in Manhattan. How can you say no one wants it - we must live in completely different circles because everyone I know wants one there, whether single, married, with kids, men, women, and not blue collar. I have no idea where you got the statistics about who goes to professional sports, but I am an avid sports fan and season ticket holder for three sports and that is not who I am seeing at these games. To be honest, it's at least as many professionals as blue collar, they have money, and I'm not seeing families from the burbs except at baseball games.

I have lived in other cities where the stadiums are in the heart of town and that is the best! I wish all the stadiums in New York were in Manhattan, how fun would that be? You really do go to events more if they are close by. In cities across America stadiums are being built in the heart of downtowns, and completely revitalizing the neighborhoods like what Coors Field did for Denver, or Camden Yards for Baltimore.

I can't believe you would lose everything Chris, especially since what is there is one of the worst parts of Manhattan - an embarrassing eyesore. The stadium may well save the neighborhood.

(Edited by NYatKNIGHT at 10:38 am on Nov. 7, 2002)

Edward
November 6th, 2002, 10:13 PM
Nuclear power plants are cleaner than coal or gas power plants and do not kill birds like wind farms. They are unpopular because of widespread misconceptions.

I am used to Manhattan property values going only up. I would be curious to know whether ANY area in Manhattan declined in value let's say in the last ten years and a reason for the decline.

And, chris, the forum is open not only to residents of Manhattan, but also to residents of Queens and Brooklyn, illegal aliens and even citizens of some European countries.

Agglomeration
November 6th, 2002, 11:11 PM
"Maria Garcia of the Chelsea Owners and Tenants for Neighborhood Preservation said many people now oppose the 2012 Summer Games altogether - not just the stadium.

"The mayor is going to have a real fight on his hands," Garcia said.

On Saturday, the U.S. Olympic Committee voted to back New York City as its candidate to host the 2012 Olympic Games.

The decision means New York will have to compete against several foreign cities to host the games. A final decision will be made in 2005.

While many civic groups are behind the mayor's efforts to bring the games to New York for its potential economic benefits, opponents are marshaling their arguments, citing potential traffic, environmental consequences, terrorism concerns and costs.

While community boards in Flushing and Astoria are overwhelmingly in favor of having Flushing Meadows-Corona Park host rowing, canoeing, tennis, swimming and other events, some activists in Queens read only bad news in the glossy NYC2012 brochures.

Patricia Dolan, president of the Kew Gardens Hills Civic Association, is skeptical that the new construction will benefit residents of the borough.

Some of the plans for Flushing Meadows-Corona Park call for the merging of the two man-made lakes, new soccer fields and a new whitewater rafting facility.

"They [will] come in here and rip the heart out of our park and 17 days later they will pack up and go back to Manhattan," Dolan said. "


(Get me my barf bag. This is not Copenhagen. These "activists" are turning from NIMBY's to TEDAO's (Tear Everything Down At Once). If they had any more power they would be deliberately tearing down all subways, all shopping districts, all factory areas, and all skyscrapers, including the Chrysler Building. Wake up you TEDAO's! This is not West Side Story!)

(Edited by Agglomeration at 10:12 pm on Nov. 6, 2002)

NYguy
November 7th, 2002, 10:38 AM
Quote: from chris on 3:05 pm on Nov. 6, 2002
Give me a break...There is a reason why all of our sports stadiums are in one of these areas: That is where the customers are, the burbs or blue collar neighborhoods. *Additionally, I'm not generally a Nimby, you can build whatever.......If you actually LIVE in Manhattan, or specifically, if you live on the west side then speak-up. If not, then shut the f*ck up. You're just a wanna-be anyway.

Are you aware that the Giants, Yankees, and Mets all played games at the Polo Grounds? *A stadium in Manhattan? *Are you aware that Madison Square Garden, in the middle of Manhattan no less, is almost always sold out? *You say that you are not a NIMBY, but you sir are the worst kind of NIMBY. *You may own a home in Manhattan, but that doesn't make it your own personal kingdom. *And you had to know that large developments take place in Manhattan all the time, so you sir, gimme a break...

NYguy
November 7th, 2002, 10:41 AM
Daily News...

Mayor tries on one-size-fits-all
W. Side stadium

By MICHAEL SAUL

Officials are considering a new high-tech West Side stadium that can shrink from a massive sports arena into an intimate concert hall with the flip of a switch.

After meeting with the U.S. Olympic Committee yesterday, Mayor Bloomberg said the stadium could be the new home of the New York Jets - and the Rangers and Knicks.

"There's no reason why ... you could not have multiple uses and multiple-size venues within the same building," he said.

An 86,000-seat stadium is a key component of the city's bid to play host to the 2012 Summer Games, but officials say the construction is going ahead regardless of whether New York wins.

The Incredible Shrinking Stadium is based on Japan's Saitama Super Arena, where the walls, ceiling, floors, seats, concession stands - even the plumbing - move.

The arena can be used as a stadium for more than 30,000 soccer fans, an arena for 20,000 or a hall for 5,000. The bathrooms can shift in 20 minutes to match a crowd's male-to-female ratio.

"It's a totally different world," said Dan Doctoroff, deputy mayor for economic development and rebuilding.

David Cornstein, chairman of the state Olympic Games Commission, called a shape-shifting stadium an intriguing idea but added, "The devil is in the details."

Doctoroff estimated the cost of the West Side development - a new stadium, expansion of the Javits Center and extension of the No. 7 subway train - at $3 billion.

He said it would be financed with a combination of private money, largely from the New York Jets, and taxes generated from the development of the surrounding area. Stadium tickets also might carry an extra charge.

Eugenius
November 7th, 2002, 10:53 AM
I am having difficulty believing that a small technological miracle as a shifting stadium in Manhattan will only cost $3BN. *Nevertheless, given the expense of everything else in Manhattan, I think fans would be willing to spend an extra few dollars on tickets to help pay for the cost.

NYguy
November 10th, 2002, 10:11 AM
More from the NIMBYs...
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/61747.htm

TheinSiDer
January 15th, 2003, 01:04 AM
yes, sadly the cost of the proposed jets stadium will come from out of our pockets, but never the less i can't help but be blinded by such radical proposal to be injected into our new york city fabric. The latest monumental addition, just in time, seeing... we just lost one of our greatest...this stadium will strengthen our cities integrity. it will only aid our lost. Maybe bloomberg's using this to be in the light, but it will not darken our recent tragedy. this project's been on the drawing boards way before 9/11. the lucky sculptors, Kohn Pedersen Fox architects, heads the design, famous for monuments all around the world. with this... i am confident in the outcome of this project

www.kpf.com *

billyblancoNYC
January 15th, 2003, 10:29 AM
Can you find the plans on the KPF site? *I thought it was done by someone else.

Anyway, there is nothing bad about this proposal except maybe some extra traffic. *So what - this is Manhattan. *It'll be better than the current MSG traffic, since it is much more remote (by the West Side Highway, etc.).

It, with the Javits expansion (finally) to the North will cause a "boom" in development in a tragically indeveloped slab of Manhattan. *Odd that it has been this long for any real plans to go forth in that area. *

It will be great - there should be a lot of bars, restaurants, hotels, and residences in the area to make it have a real "downtown" feel. *If you've been to Chicago or Boston or Baltimore, etc. you know how great it would be.

Amazing how people in the most dynamic city in, maybe, the world could hate change so much. *Carzy, really.

ZippyTheChimp
January 15th, 2003, 10:29 AM
I was originally opposed to the west side stadium plan:
1. The land is too valuable for 8 football games a year.
2. Ticket holders generally drive. Hard to tailgate on the subway.
3. I'm a Giants fan *;)

But a multiuse (shrinkable?) stadium incorporating Javitts Center makes more economic sense.

Any models of the stadium?

TheinSiDer
January 16th, 2003, 01:31 AM
my site's down, but if u guys wanna see some pix of what the stadium looks like so far, email me at:

dkpdt@aol.com

the designing of this things still in progress so keep in mind that it may look totally diferent from what it *looks like now

BrooklynRider
January 16th, 2003, 02:06 PM
It seems the chorus of voices opposed to this project is similar to the small loud group of victim's families who believe that if they yell loudest they are somehow right.

A stadium not only in Manhattan, but in this particular location makes great development sense. *It sits atop a transportation hub that draws from every suburb and every borough. *The argument about traffic is not applicable, because a auto transportation is eliminated from the equation by location.

Derek2k3
February 3rd, 2003, 10:38 PM
Here are some renderings of it. It looks pretty good.
http://images2.fotki.com/v17/free/c9cc/3/39399/194918/JetsOlympicStadium1KohnPedersenFox-vi.jpg?1044324311
This is from TheinSiDer. Thanks by the way. The big version is here. \http://images2.fotki.com/v17/free/c9cc/3/39399/194918/JetsOlympicStadium1KohnPedersenFox-or.jpg

Some other renderings from AIANY. *\http://www.aiany.org
http://www.aiany.org/designawards/2002/project/jpegs/282a.jpg
http://www.aiany.org/designawards/2002/project/jpegs/282b.jpg
http://www.aiany.org/designawards/2002/project/jpegs/282c.jpg

Thanks to KPF.

billyblancoNYC
February 4th, 2003, 12:01 PM
That's pretty f***in nice. *That would look great on the water. *Plus, it could be a Javits addition (plus going North), a home for the Jets, Knicks, Rangers, maybe the MetroStars and will be able to host all those mega concerts that go to Nassau and the Meadowlands now.

I can't see how this is bad for the city, really.

NoyokA
February 4th, 2003, 04:27 PM
Great looking stadium.

TLOZ Link5
February 4th, 2003, 06:23 PM
oooh, gorgeous.

Derek2k3
February 7th, 2003, 08:18 AM
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1840&dept_id=112392&newsid=6945604&PA G=461&rfi=9

Chelsea residents vow to fight city on stadium

By: Albert Amateau February 05, 2003




A few hours after Mayor Bloomberg on Jan. 23 outlined his vision for the west side of Midtown - including an Olympic stadium, high-rise office towers and an expanded Javits Convention Center, Chelsea residents and elected officials vowed to resist the plan they fear would overwhelm their neighborhood.

More than 60 residents ventured out in the freezing weather to gather at P.S. 33 in Chelsea to denounce both the proposal for a stadium to serve the 2012 Olympics and the Jets football franchise and for an extension of the No. 7 subway line to 10th Ave. as a wasteful use of public funds.

"The stadium is being foisted on a community that doesn't want it," said Kathy Kinsella, a Democratic district leader who moderated the forum.

Assemblymember Richard Gottfried, State Sen. Tom Duane and City Councilmember Christine Quinn ridiculed the Bloomberg administration's view that the redevelopment area - roughly between 24th and 43rd Sts. from Eighth Ave. to the Hudson River - is "dead space."

"Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff described it as a place where nothing happens and City Planning says that only 150 people live in the area - they're describing my district," said Quinn. The population estimate of 150 might apply to three blocks directly across from the rail yards, but it's absurd considering the proposed redevelopment area, Quinn declared. "The planning is for tourism, sports and entertainment and there's no planning for housing or schools," she added.

City Planning has scheduled a Feb. 10 hearing at 6 p.m. at the Javits Convention Center, Hall 1E, on the proposal, known as the Hudson Yards Master Plan. Quinn noted that the stadium and redevelopment plan must go through the city Uniform Land-Use Review Procedure, with final review by the City Council, a process that takes at least seven months. "We need to involve other neighborhoods and boroughs because the City Council is where the plan could be stopped," said Quinn. Elected officials also denounced the Tax-Increment Funding proposal to pay for the subway extension and part of the stadium with future taxes based on the enhanced value of the redeveloped neighborhood.

"The city is looking to take future tax revenue for the No. 7 line extension and for the billion-dollar platform over the rail yards for the stadium - that's money that won't be used for city services," said Gottfried. "Not a single constituent has ever said we need the subway extension - subways have always been a development tool. We want people to come to the West Side, but not tens of thousands of them who want to party after a football game," he said.

Gottfried said the No. 7 subway extension would "have a devastating impact" on the Second Ave. subway proposed for the East Side. "We have a good shot at defeating [the No. 7 line extension] because [Assembly Speaker] Sheldon Silver's district includes the Second Ave. line," Gottfried suggested.

Duane also criticized the Tax-Increment Funding proposal. "I don't want to see future taxes go to support overdevelopment," he said. "We need a movement like the one that stopped Westway," he added, referring to the defeat in 1985 of the $4 billion federal landfill-and-highway project along the Hudson River between the Battery and 59th St.

Joseph Rappaport, a former policy analyst with the New York Public Interest Research Group and the Straphangers' Campaign and currently with the Transport Workers Union, said there have been no studies to show the benefits of a No. 7 line extension. He contended the extended track would have curves that would force trains to go slowly and result in fewer trains per hour on the line which links Flushing and Shea Stadium with Manhattan.

John Fisher, a founder of the Clinton Special District Coalition, said the stadium and redevelopment proposal would add 20 million sq. ft. of office space and allow for 30 high-rise office buildings. "There is now 44 million sq. ft. of vacant space in Manhattan, about 14 million of it Downtown," Fisher added.

The Bloomberg administration's view of the Hudson Yards and stadium proposal is on the City Planning Web site, reachable through www.nyc.gov.

The forum was sponsored by the Chelsea Reform Democratic Club.


He acts like the towers will be built next week. All 150 of them are fools. I can't believe they are even trying to stop the 7 line.

Evan
February 7th, 2003, 11:01 AM
Is there any area in the city that welcomes development??? *I don't think those residents have much of a chance to kill the plans. *How 150 people have more say than the entire metro area of NYC is unfathomable. *The whole metro area would benefit from a stadium and an expanded Javitz Convention Center. *Having the Jets, Rangers, and Knicks in brand new stadiums will fetch more revenue for the city, especially because the Jets were in Jersey. *The Knicks and Rangers are horrible. *If they get a new stadium, fans might come out to see them again. *The Javitz center is too small for major conventions. *Making it bigger will bring more and bigger conventions to the city. *Hotels will see more occupancy, and the city will beneift from having more tourists who like to buy things.

billyblancoNYC
February 7th, 2003, 12:22 PM
Obviously, Evan, you have a problem.

The problem is that you think with your head NOT up your a**, just spewing logic left and right.

Why would the city not want to develop all that land, it's much better serving the area as garages, warehouses, and vacant buildings and lots. *Why would you want to a world class facility bringing in all these taxes and development. *

Why can't Manhattan go back to the days before it was bought for $24 - ahhh, the good life.

NYguy
February 7th, 2003, 02:19 PM
A little more on the stadium...
http://real.ny1.com:8080/ramgen/real3/000403A9_030206_171138hi.rm
http://real.ny1.com:8080/ramgen/real3/000403A9_030206_171138lo.rm

Evan
February 7th, 2003, 02:53 PM
Quote: from billyblancoNYC on 11:22 am on Feb. 7, 2003
Obviously, Evan, you have a problem.

The problem is that you think with your head NOT up your a**, just spewing logic left and right.

Why would the city not want to develop all that land, it's much better serving the area as garages, warehouses, and vacant buildings and lots. *Why would you want to a world class facility bringing in all these taxes and development. *

Why can't Manhattan go back to the days before it was bought for $24 - ahhh, the good life.


LOL billyblancoNYC. *That was excellent satire!!!

NYguy
February 12th, 2003, 10:27 AM
New Jets Stadium on West Side?
NPR, January 29, 2003
by Fred Mogul

The New York Jets have released drawings for a proposed West Side stadium almost covertly. You have to go to a museum in Washington to see them. The proposed stadium wouldn't just be Jets green,' it would be the country's first environmentally green arena, too - complete with solar cells, wind turbines and rain catchers. WNYC's Fred Mogul takes a look at the plans.

The High-Line is a weedy, abandoned overpass -- a linear vacant lot that connects the West Village's old meatpacking district with the midtown rail-yards near the Javits Convention Center. It's been years since anyone has used it to ship meat and produce uptown, but if architect Bill Pedersen has his way

Pedersen: we can potentially integrate the High Line into the movement system of the stadium and bring people into the stadium on the High Line itself. And drawing the character of the High Line and drawing the physical aspect of the High Line into the design of the stadium was a very important consideration for us in the design for us.

Can you integrate a glistening 75,000-seat stadium into a gritty urban neighborhood and a proposed riverside park? Pedersen and his team at Kohn Pedersen Fox & Associates started with the old ocean-liner piers nearby, that jut into the Hudson.

Pedersen: And those piers have a very specific architectural language, which is predominantly a steel skeleton which arises high above the body of the pier and forms two very strong parallel walls extending out into the Hudson river. In many respects, we can almost think of it as an inland pier.

The proposed stadium on 11th Avenue and 32nd Street also echoes the George Washington Bridge, and its gauzey screens of interlocking beams and girders. But Pedersen wants this 20-story-high rectangular box to be both industrial and natural. What landed his plans in a new exhibit called Big n' Green, at the National Building Museum in Washington, is the stadium's environmental sensitivity.

Pedersen: We believe that this building has the potential to be a power plant as opposed to just a consumer of energy, and we're able to generate energy from sustainable sources.

The retractable-roof stadium would have solar tubes for heat; large, channeled roofs for collecting water; and photo-voltaic cells to produce electricity -- which would also be generated by a series of wind turbines -- two long horizontal rows of slowly-twisting fan blades extending the length of the stadium sides. Pedersen says these will make the structure kinetic. Architectural motion' is one thing, but local neighborhood activist John Fisher is concerned about another kind of activity: traffic.

Fisher: That's 10,000 cars, and that's the Jets' own study that predicted that, on a Sunday afternoon. That's the quiet time for this neighborhood. During the rest of the week, we're inundated with gridlock, day in, day out.

Fisher thinks the Jets are using environmentalism to sell a controversial project. He's concerned that the stadium will be used much more than eight autumn Sundays a year. There are plans that would temporarily expand it into an Olympic stadium in 2012, and regularly contract it into an indoor arena that could someday replace Madison Square Garden. Its palatial floor could be used as an expansion for the Javits Convention Center, if Mayor Bloomberg has his way. Felix Bermudez lives two blocks away, and as far as he's concerned, the more activity, the better.

Bermudez: It's NYC, it's part of our life -- the traffic the noise the blowing of the horn everything congested. That's us. That's New York. That's how we live. That's how we get along. And I'm all for it, and hopefully I get an offer for my apartment from some rich millionaire.

The City planning department is holding a meeting on the Hudson Yards area at the Javits Center on February 10, a week from Monday. Approval for the stadium and the extended neighborhood-development plans -- if approval comes -- will take months, or even years. And if Pedersen's creation does gets built, it will be interesting to see how much of the artist's rendering - and his vision -- remains.

For WNYC, I'm Fred Mogul.

Find out more about the Hudson Yards from the City Planning Dept. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/hyards/hymain.html

Visit "Big and Green" at the National Building Museum
http://www.nbm.org/Exhibits/current/Big_and_Green.html

billyblancoNYC
February 12th, 2003, 10:39 AM
Thank God for the Bermudez-s of the world!

dbhstockton
February 20th, 2003, 01:03 PM
From http://www.nyobserver.com

After a Huddle, Jets Start Rush For West Side

by Greg Sargent With Tom McGeveran

The Jets are preparing to launch an all-out political and public-relations blitz designed to build support for their plan to move to a new stadium on the West Side of Manhattan, The Observer has learned.

The team has hired Bill Lynch, the veteran Democratic operative, former deputy mayor and long-suffering Jets fan, to help win over elected officials, community leaders and members of the city’s labor elite. The Jets have also commissioned a poll designed to create a detailed profile of New Yorkers’ attitudes towards a new stadium, making it easier for the team to market the idea.

"In the next few months, we’re going to put on the full-court press," Mr. Lynch said in an interview with The Observer. "We’re going to win support from one end of the city to the other."

The poll, which is currently being conducted among likely voters in New York, will also help the team counter the campaign that in coming months will inevitably be waged by community opposition groups. Many of them are already mobilizing to block the plan, even as some midtown real-estate developers—such as Douglas Durst, the builder of the Condé Nast building—are publicly questioning its financing scheme.

The stadium is part of a broader proposal, unveiled by the Bloomberg administration on Feb. 10, which would include a sports facility, an expansion of the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center, and a host of other amenities on the west side between 42nd and 28th streets. But it’s the stadium that has fired up the opposition.

So the Jets are planning an intense effort to win public support. Jets coach Herm Edwards, and possibly Chad Pennington, the young, rookie quarterback who carried the Jets into the playoffs, are expected to play a role. Mr. Edwards is being honored on Feb. 27 before a group of top New York City executives organized by the Association for a Better New York and 100 Black Men of America, a national group devoted to helping African Americans. While the Jets’ future location won’t be the focus of his remarks, Mr. Edwards is expected to tell his audience that he’d love to bring the team back to New York. Mr. Lynch said he’d advise the Jets to get Mr. Edwards and Mr. Pennington to promote the idea in speeches or in visits to community groups.

"We want to build on the success the Jets had last year," said Mr. Lynch, who reports to Jay Cross, the President of Jets Development, which was set up to build the new facility. "With the rise of Chad Pennington, there’s a buzz out there in the city about the Jets," Mr. Lynch continued, "and I think the team ought to capitalize on that. We will develop an outreach campaign that relies on the general goodwill that the Jets have provided. I want everyone to be wearing a Jets cap in this city. I want New York to become Jets-town."

The team has been discussing sending out mailings promoting the stadium plan to season ticket holders, and according to sources, the Jets organization is discussing a possible a media campaign similar to the one used by the city last year to entice the Olympics to come to New York, which included mailings and TV ads.

Mr. Lynch is hardly the only person involved in the campaign. Others include high-profile public relations men John Marino and Dan Klores, as well as a team of consultants operating out of Albany who are charged with lobbying the Governor’s office. But it’s Mr. Lynch who will have the extremely difficult task of winning over local elected officials and grass-roots leaders. Mr. Lynch, who helped engineer the rise of David Dinkins, has extensive credibility for many of these leaders. The question is whether this will prove at all persuasive to opponents of the project, many of whom harbor a suspicion of vast capital projects that was forged during the struggle against Westway a generation ago.

Critics Lash Out

Indeed, some opponents are already casting the Jets’ nascent lobbying efforts as those of an all-powerful corporate entity bent on subverting the will of the community.

"It seems somewhat unfair that the Jets are going to dump all of their corporate resources into this when they are up against unfunded community groups who are just trying to protect their neighborhood and fight for responsible development," said Council member Christine Quinn of the West Side. "That said, I’d still bet on the West Side residents."

Enter Mr. Lynch, a lifelong New Yorker and Jets fan, whose reputation will be key to making the case that the facility will be friendly to the neighborhood, bringing prosperity and new amenities to a district of grimy warehouses and vast, empty thoroughfares.

"We have to make sure this is not seen as a project that’s being forced down the community’s throat," Mr. Lynch said. "We want to get the message out that this will be community-friendly. That’s going to be key."

The plan for a Jets facility in Manhattan is at the center of a vast proposal that would require billions of dollars in public investment. It calls for a string of new office towers across 11th Avenue from an expanded Jacob K. Javits Convention center. It would include parkland, mixed income housing, a waterfront esplanade, ferry terminals, hotels and a new tree-lined boulevard. The number 7 train would be extended from Times Square to 34th Street and 11th Avenue.

The new stadium—which would be home to the Jets and, possibly, the Olympics, should it come to New York in 2012—would be built on a huge platform atop the rail yards in the west 30s. While the Jets would pay for much of the stadium, the city and state would put up the money to build the platform.

Some elements of the project—which needs City Council approval and relies heavily on state investment—have already stirred fierce opposition from west side residents and local politicians. Some groups fear the destruction of local housing, while others are afraid that congestion will discourage visitors to the nearby theater district.

Meanwhile, some state officials and real estate developers are questioning whether the new office towers will succeed in generating enough revenue to help finance the rest of the development. They are wondering if the plan will go belly up and force the taxpayers to bail it out.

"The Jets have done a great job of listening to all the interested parties, and the physical plan is very well thought out," said Mr. Durst, the real estate developer, whose family owns a number of office towers in midtown. "However, I don’t understand the economics. I don’t see how you project demand for 30 million square feet of office space. If they are going to finance it with revenues from those rentals, it seems to me to be a very risky approach. It’s possible that they could end up with some of the financing, but go bust. Then what would happen?"

Mr. Bloomberg and deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff have already undertaken an intense, behind-the-scenes effort to win support for the proposal among business, labor and civic leaders. In speeches and in private briefings, the Mayor has been telling these leaders that the city’s finances are in terrible shape and that the city’s future depends on its ability to grow its way out of the crisis. The west side plan, the Mayor has been saying, is key to that effort.

Now the Jets are launching their own effort. Mr. Lynch has been lobbying public officials throughout the city, many of whom know and trust him from past campaigns. Mr. Lynch’s love of the team is driving his efforts—he has been a fan since the 1960s, when Joe Namath was wearing Brut and throwing passes into the wind at Shea Stadium, and these days, his 27-year-old daughter sports a jersey featuring the name and number of Curtis Martin, the Jets’ All-Pro running back. The Jets moved from Shea in 1984 when the team’s then-owner, Leon Hess, complained about conditions at the stadium, especially, he said, the overflowing toilets in the men’s bathrooms.

Mr. Lynch said that he believed that New Yorkers would support the new Jets stadium, which presumably will feature the latest in bathroom technology. That prediction is supported by two polls the Jets commissioned in the past to gauge public backing—one in 2001 and the other in 2000. One survey, Mr. Lynch said, noted that in 1984 the Jets moved from Shea Stadium to New Jersey, and asked if the Jets should come back to New York. Sixty-five percent said yes.

The new poll commissioned by the team is intended both to gauge whether that support is still there and how support and opposition breaks down by race, age and other demographic categories. "We’re trying to find out the reasons people support or oppose the proposal," Mr. Lynch said. "That will enable us to make the case."

In the end, Mr. Lynch hopes to emulate teams who built stadiums in San Francisco, Toronto and London, where, he said, the projects were largely embraced by the local populations. "In these economic times," Mr. Lynch said, "we should create a big project that is both community friendly and helpful to the economic health of the city."

You may reach Greg Sargent and Tom McGeveran via email at: gsargent@observer.com and tmcgeveran@observer.com.

Derek2k3
February 20th, 2003, 05:11 PM
I remember reading that one of 150 people who live there wants a height limit of 66 feet for the West side ...I hope that whore's house is the first to be demolished for a 100 story skyscraper. Then she can decide if the cardboard box she'll be living in is consistent with the neighborhood.

JMGarcia
February 20th, 2003, 06:34 PM
Christine Quinn is against everything. There has never, ever been a proposal she has been in favor of in her entire tenure in public life.

DominicanoNYC
February 20th, 2003, 09:37 PM
The Jets need to come to their REAL home any way. I'm a Jets fan and I've really wanted to see the game live instead of in TV.

JerzDevl2000
February 21st, 2003, 02:42 AM
JMGarcia - Agreed 100%. I get the Hell's Kitchen mailing list and I can vouch for her Super-Nimby attitude.

These times, they are a changing! West Siders can admit it, or lose the growth to another part of town.

dbhstockton
February 21st, 2003, 03:08 AM
Those NIMBY's that own property in the area won't be complaining if they ever decide to sell or utilize their equity. *Shit, if I had the resources, I'd start buying up properties in the area. *I know someone who bought a townhouse in the west 40's in the 1980's. * Needless to say, the return on that investment has been astronomical. *There is a nice traditional nyc brownstone neighborhood in Hell's Kitchen (I'll never get used to "Clinton"). *It was already on its way to becoming and upscale traditional nyc brownstone neighborhood before all this talk of developing the Hudson Yards. *

NYguy
March 1st, 2003, 09:05 AM
NY Post...
WEST SIDE LANDING
By ROBERT HARDT Jr.

March 1, 2003 -- The New York Jets yesterday unveiled their blueprint for a $1.2 billion retractable-domed football stadium on Manhattan's West Side - but don't expect to have a tailgate party there.

Jets President Jay Cross said the 85,000-seat stadium - which could also be used for the 2012 Olympics, conventions and rock concerts - won't have any additional parking spaces in the area for the thousands of Gang Green fans.

"We're not building parking," Cross said at a conference at Baruch College, where he unveiled elaborate drawings of the football stadium that would be built above the railyards near the Hudson River.

The Jets honcho estimated that only about 7,300 cars would come into Manhattan for one of the team's eight regular-season home games - a far cry from the 30,000 cars that park in the Meadowlands at Giants Stadium for football games.

"I don't think there is a potential site in the entire world that has more transit," said Cross, who estimated that 70 percent of the 85,000 fans would take trains or ferries to get to the games.

New Jersey fans will be able to take ferries across the Hudson River to help alleviate traffic - which is one of the biggest concerns of many local residents who are opposed to the project.

The stadium is part of Mayor Bloomberg's vision of redeveloping the West Side - which would include an extension of the No. 7 train, an expansion of the Javits Center and the creation of new office space in the barren neighborhood.

The Jets - whose current lease at Giants Stadium expires in 2008 - have said they would pay for most of the stadium if the city and state would build a $250 million concrete deck over the railyards on which the arena would sit.

The site had been previously eyed by officials of the New York Yankees when they sought to relocate to Midtown.

Cross said that the arena - which he called the "New York Sports and Convention Center" - would not greatly add to traffic congestion in the neighborhood because the team would play on Sundays.

But Cross outlined a "multi-use, multi-audience" program for the stadium that included arena rock concerts, conventions and theater productions.

Cross also said the stadium could host the NCAA's Final Four of basketball and an annual Big Apple bowl game for college football.

While the Bloomberg administration and many business leaders were immediately bullish on the Jets plans, several people at the conference immediately opposed it.

"The neighborhood needs to be developed - but not at this scale, not at this density, and not to this degree," said Joe Restuccia, a member of Community Board 4, which includes the West Side.
.................................................. ..................

Here's a rendering from the Post...

http://www.pbase.com/image/13798806/large

http://www.pbase.com/image/13798803

Evan
March 1st, 2003, 10:02 AM
Quote: from NYguy on 8:05 am on Mar. 1, 2003
The Jets - whose current lease at Giants Stadium expires in 2008 - have said they would pay for most of the stadium if the city and state would build a $250 million concrete deck over the railyards on which the arena would sit.

This should allay some of the complaints that the city is gratuitously spendind during times of big deficits. *Hopefully the West Side Opposition will be stifled.

Anonymous
March 1st, 2003, 11:43 AM
I heard about that stadium so this is not new to me.

NoyokA
March 1st, 2003, 12:36 PM
Also notice the large commercial buildings. This could very well become the heart of New York City, revitalize the city as a whole. I however feel this is a vision that won't be substancizied.

dbhstockton
March 1st, 2003, 03:30 PM
Man, I hate that west-side highway. *Seeing that little strip of trees in the rendering where a highway should be just reminded me. *The NIMBY's that defeated Westway must love it when they roller-blade past my car as I idle in traffic.

Thomas
March 1st, 2003, 05:11 PM
This will be a huge success, and kudos to Mr Woody Johnson and the Jets for coming up with the money.

The transportation links will be vast, from the bottom rendering it looks like a nice ferry terminal connected to the stadium, plus LIRR, NJ Transit, #7 train, Amtrak and eventually Metro North via the West Side Connector.

ddny
March 1st, 2003, 06:45 PM
Quote: from NYguy on 11:05 am on Mar. 1, 2003[

Here's a rendering from the Post...

http://www.pbase.com/image/13798806/large

http://www.pbase.com/image/13798803


I don't like the look of the stadium. Who is designing it?

Kris
March 1st, 2003, 06:49 PM
KPF. It's not spectacular for an Olympic Stadium, but it seems elegant and refined (albeit simple and conventional). I'd like to see detailed plans and descriptions.

dbhstockton
March 1st, 2003, 07:06 PM
Apparantly there's a lot of high-tech environmental design going in to it. *I think they're saying that it has the potential to generate power as well as host stadium functions.

It is disapointingly square. *Stadiums are often an opportunity for cities to put up something trully futuristic and UFO-like, but KPF took the safe route.

ddny
March 1st, 2003, 07:21 PM
Are there chances for modifications of the design? You're right...it's too square for me.

Kris
March 1st, 2003, 07:27 PM
Well, its construction won't start before a while. I do like the transparencies. It looks rather open to the river and the city.

Fountainhead
March 3rd, 2003, 06:36 AM
Interesting design, looks pretty good. How does it fit into the NYC 2012 overall plan? It looks like it would just host football and possibly arena-size events like basketball if used for the olympics......the stadium is too small to accommodate an athletics track even with moving tiers. There does not seem to be much space beside it for other venues, warm up facilites etc. I am guessing that the venues for the 2012 bid would be spread out all over the city, and not just in a single location?? Does anybody know if any other details of the bid are public right now?

Evan
March 3rd, 2003, 07:52 AM
Quote: from Fountainhead on 5:36 am on Mar. 3, 2003
Interesting design, looks pretty good. How does it fit into the NYC 2012 overall plan? It looks like it would just host football and possibly arena-size events like basketball if used for the olympics......the stadium is too small to accommodate an athletics track even with moving tiers. There does not seem to be much space beside it for other venues, warm up facilites etc. I am guessing that the venues for the 2012 bid would be spread out all over the city, and not just in a single location?? Does anybody know if any other details of the bid are public right now?

The pictures in the post were just renderings. *The real stadium will look different and probably have more features. *The stadium could also be modified for the oympics with temporary additions. *This project is till a couple of years off because the Jets lease at Giants stadium doesn't end until 2008.

Fountainhead
March 3rd, 2003, 09:31 AM
Thanks Evan, I am particularly interested in this project because I am an architect in a firm that specializes in stadia! I am currently working on a design competition for the main olympic stadium in Beijing (100K seats in olympic mode), and I am always keen to see what is coming up! It just seems like this stadium is not envisaged to host athletics, as it is being designed primarily for football - so I was just wondering what other stadia are planned to be used for the NY games bid, as it takes more than just one stadium to host an olympics:)

Thomas
March 3rd, 2003, 12:23 PM
Stadiums can be altered , Turner Field in Atlanta was the Venue for the 1996 Olympics. After the Games the fiedl was altered to make it a baseball stadium for the Atlanta Braves.

billyblancoNYC
March 3rd, 2003, 12:48 PM
Fountainhead....

www.nyc2012.com

TonyO
March 3rd, 2003, 01:44 PM
I used to live in Seattle and was adamantly against the new Mariner's baseball stadium there. *It was largely publicly financed and pretty much forced down the throats of the public (as most things are). *I was completely against it at the time.

After it was built, however, I changed my tune. *It was amazing...and a great place to see a game. *It was worth it, and I was wrong.

Here, there are different issues of course. * This stadium appears to have a major financer - good. *It is not going to require the major destruction of standing buildings, because it is being placed over rail yards. *It is a huge boost to a NYC olympic bid.

I don't live in that neighborhood, but I've been through it many times. *It sure looks like it would be an improvement.

Its so interesting to hear people living there complain about increased traffic! *It's the center of the city! *That's what the infrastructure was built for - traffic.

Anonymous
March 3rd, 2003, 02:44 PM
If built it will be the new home for the NY Jets after the Olympics, though I wouldn't care much b/c I don't really follow any football.

Fountainhead
March 4th, 2003, 04:53 AM
Quote: from billyblancoNYC on 11:48 am on Mar. 3, 2003
Fountainhead....

www.nyc2012.com


now, it all makes sense!!

thanks:)

chris
March 5th, 2003, 03:25 AM
Nice alias, Fountainhead.
You also could have called yourself Howard Roark.

Welcome to the board.

VeritecF
March 5th, 2003, 04:15 AM
yea everybody got the fountainhead reference chris. *

don't be ostentatious.

chris
March 5th, 2003, 04:30 PM
Me ostentatious?

As your 2nd post ever to the forum you "confront" a longstanding member over the phrasing of how I choose to politely greet another new member... and then label me the ostentatious one. That's rich!

No, you're not ostentatious pal, you're an _ _ _ _ _ _ _.



(Edited by chris at 3:45 pm on Mar. 5, 2003)

NoyokA
March 5th, 2003, 04:42 PM
hey now...

Lets not get riled up, we're all friends here.

chris
March 5th, 2003, 05:25 PM
I see dbhstockton called this other newby a sh*thead on another recent post. dbhstockton is well respected on the board. Should I use that as precedence, and change my blanks back to @sshole, or should I leave it alone? I also noticed Edward recently admonished NYC4ever for posting BULLSHI* on another thread... but he didn't remove the post or ask him to edit it...

Sorry, I just couldn't resist. You're a good man Stern.

dbhstockton
March 6th, 2003, 02:00 AM
Yeah, I may have been a little hard on tonyo, but the tone of this board had just been getting more and more juvenile. *I just snapped.

VeritecF
March 6th, 2003, 02:56 AM
you should be flattered by my honesty chris. *honesty is one of the few signs of respect.

and btw, i do not confront "a longstanding member." *i simply make a statement to another member. *the validity of the statement is irrelevant to the status of the number of posts said member has made.

Fountainhead
March 6th, 2003, 04:45 AM
WHOA.....peace guys:) I don't want to change my alias to "Firestarter";)

chris
March 7th, 2003, 04:10 AM
you should be flattered by my honesty chris. *honesty is one of the few signs of respect.

and btw, i do not confront "a longstanding member." *i simply make a statement to another member. *the validity of the statement is irrelevant to the status of the number of posts said member has made.

Back-peddle if you wish.

You earn the respect of your peers by participation. With only 2 posts, your line of credit on respect hasn't even been established yet. Your current account balance is effectively in overdraft. Members that have hundreds of posts have a long line of credit to draw against. An occassional flippant remark draws little against the balance of a longstanding member: As a percentage of total participation, it will account for less than 1% of total forum participation. As only your 2nd post, that makes 50% of your participation that of an @sshole.

As for Fountainhead, from one Ayn Rand fan to another, I merely wished to welcome you to the board with a comment establishing common ground. I hope this unfortunate incident doesn't misrepresent to you the atmosphere of this forum.

I have nothing else to say on the matter.

VeritecF
March 7th, 2003, 05:04 AM
i was not back-peddling, but rather simply stating a fact. *however you choose to see that is your own decision. *as to your grand analogy, it is again irrelevent to anything of a factual nature in terms of the validity of any of my statements. *if you disagree with me, perhaps you should re-read some of your Ayn Rand, because you seem to have missed some key points.

however, you are correct in that ones respect must be earned only through ones thoughts and actions. *which is one of the reasons i am always honest. *for that respect, self and otherwise, is part of the selfish nature of honesty. *

and i won't respond to any comments of vulgarity, it only insults you.

but perhaps you are right, that the matter is one best laid to rest.

NYguy
March 11th, 2003, 05:11 PM
A look at the railyards, site of the potential new stadium...

http://www.pbase.com/image/14195853

http://www.pbase.com/image/14195869

dbhstockton
March 11th, 2003, 05:34 PM
You can see the start of the High Line on the right of the second photo, if anyone cares.

billyblancoNYC
March 11th, 2003, 07:13 PM
What a shame to mess up that wonderful area with new parks, towers, and a stadium.

NoyokA
March 11th, 2003, 07:45 PM
lol... I know you are joking.

The highline is incorporated into this proposal. I love this new type of master planning.

Fountainhead
March 11th, 2003, 10:58 PM
That is an incredibly huge and complex area to build over. The only similar situation that I can think of is Federation Square, which was built over a railyard in Melbourne and recently opened at the end of 2002.

http://www.federationsquare.com

http://www.bonaccigroup.com/Images/fedsqdeck.jpg

http://www.mybestlife.com/Ambientecostruito/4-2000/immagine2.jpg

http://www.theage.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1034561542568_2002/10/23/fed1,0.jpg

The architects, LAB Architecture Studio
http://www.labarchitecture.com
worked for Daniel Liebskind as students, before winning this project as their first commission!!

JMGarcia
March 12th, 2003, 11:33 AM
I had always said to myself that Fed. Sq. looks a lot like Libeskind could have done it except its slighty different in form. Its a bit more globular where as Libeskind himself is a bit more angular.

I really like Fed. Sq. though. Its an excellent addition to Melbourne.

Kris
March 29th, 2003, 07:47 AM
http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/03/30/realestate/30COV.468.jpg
Rendering of the proposed Jets stadium shows the two panels making up the retractable roof.

TLOZ Link5
March 29th, 2003, 10:45 AM
Ugh, I don't like the renderings of the new buildings near the new stadium. *I know that they're just for massing purposes and won't be of that design, but there's too many rectangles...it looks like Pyongyang.

Evan
March 29th, 2003, 02:22 PM
Looks Great!!!

Edward
April 13th, 2003, 10:00 PM
The view of midtown Manhattan (http://www.wirednewyork.com/manhattan/default.htm) and the site of "West Side Olympic complex" from Hudson river. On the left - construction continues on 10 Times Square (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/10xsq/default.htm). 9 March 2003.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/manhattan/olympic/jets_stadium_west_side_olympic_9march2003.jpg

Kris
May 20th, 2003, 11:22 AM
http://www.kpf.com/Projects/jets.htm

chris
May 20th, 2003, 03:32 PM
Thanks Christian,

The renderings of the stadium on the KPF site are much more flattering (as could only be expected) than the others I've seen.

http://www.kpf.com/images/Projects/Jets/n1379%203001z.jpg

chris
June 5th, 2003, 07:32 PM
I know this posting is too little too late (it's going on right now)... but I'm not crazy about the stadium anyway, right? This is the sort of NIMBY activism I spoke of. From my former involvement in the block association I frequently get forwarded this sort of stuff from one of these Socialist political action groups.

-----------

> From: "Councilmember Christine C. Quinn"
>
> Subject: TOMORROW NITE IMPORTANT STADIUM HEARING
>
> Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 18:17:20 -0400
>
> *
>
> *
>
> Tomorrow, June 5th their will be an important public meeting co-hosted
> by both the City Planning Commission and the Metropolitan Transportation
> Authority regarding their proposed West Side Stadium and other large
> scale development in Hell's Kitchen, known as the Hudson Yards Plan.
> This important meeting will involve public testimony and is being held
> in our community in the evening.
> *
> *
> WHAT: City Planning/MTA Public Hearing Re: Proposed West Side Stadium
> and Hudson Yards Plan
> *
> WHEN: Thursday, June 5th at 6:00 pm
> *
> WHERE: Fashion Institute of Technology (FIT) Haft Audotirum - Bldg C on
> 27th Street b/t 7th & 8th Aves
> *
> *
> It is critical that we have a large community turnout to show the City
> Administration that we do not want a stadium
> in our neighborhood. The administration is telling people that only a
> hundred or so residents will be effected by the proposed stadium and
> development. To counter this falsehood, we need a large turnout of local
> residents and businesses to show that their are, in fact, many many more
> people that will be negatively affected.

JMGarcia
June 5th, 2003, 08:08 PM
Christy Quinn. The mother of all NIMBYs. Blah!

Jack Ryan
June 7th, 2003, 11:26 PM
That stadium reminds me of the Port Authority bus terminal.

TLOZ Link5
June 8th, 2003, 07:22 PM
The Port Authority Terminal is to buses what Penn Station is to trains. *It ought to be remodeled.

chris
June 18th, 2003, 04:49 PM
I just had this forwarded to me. If you really want to find your enemy, attend this:

> From: "Housing Conservation Coordinators"
> Reply-To:
> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 12:56:32 -0400
> To:
>
> HELL‚S KITCHEN/HUDSON YARDS ALLIANCE
> to
> Fight the Stadium and Protect Our Neighborhood!
>
>
> KEEP INFORMED! · GET INVOLVED! · MAKE YOUR OPINION KNOWN!
>
> Attend the next
>
> GENERAL MEETING
>
> of the
> Hell‚s Kitchen/Hudson Yards Alliance
>
> DATE: * * Thursday, June 19, 2003
> TIME: * * 7:00 PM
> PLACE: * * Metro Baptist Church
> 410 W. 40th Street (between 9th and Dyer Aves)

Evan
June 19th, 2003, 05:38 AM
Does Housing Conservation Coordinators have a reason for the fighting the stadium??? *It just seems to me that these people want to be heard and to feel important. *

chris
June 19th, 2003, 12:15 PM
The main gripe I hear is:
It is going to create huge congestion problems in an area that already has traffic congestion problems. I live in this area and happen to agree with that point. I also think that, on the night of games, it is going to attract and undesirable crowd to the neighborhood (see my previous post).

Other concerns that factions in this group have are:

The zoning for the neighborhood (including height restrictions) are being/have been changed to accommodate this development. I think that is a positive thing. I'm pro business growth, I just don't think this is the right place for a stadium.

Among the oposition, there are a LOT of elderly people (little old ladies)... among any of these anti-development groups that are opposed to any kind of change. It's the "nostalgia factor".

The group that is responsible for organizing all of this is a small handful of women affiliated with the American Socialist Workers Party. They don't put their name on anything, but the core group of organizers are members. They also have ties with a city council woman named Christine Quinn. Mostly they are rabidly anti Capitalist and they see all developers as "Greedy Capitalist" that must be stopped in all their pursuits. It's a bizarre ideological thing. Amazing that they don't seemed concerned about all the "Workers" that are employed by the construction industry.

billyblancoNYC
June 19th, 2003, 12:41 PM
Or the stadium for that matter. *

I can see how traffic might be an issue, but look at MSG, they survive (albeit on a smaller scale). *

It's just good for the city - olympics or not. *They'll have ferries, the 7, maybe commuter rails, too. *

It just bothers me that so many people (or at least so many loud people) never want anything built or improved. *Do they LIVE in a field? *No, at one point, someone built their dwelling, causing increased traffic, etc. *It's just life, expecially in the capital of the world. *

It's revenue, a bit of prestige, jobs, a draw to the area, and GOOD for NYC. *I keep referring to how great Wrigley(ville) is in CHI. *All the bars, restaurants, activity in that area. *NYC needs something like that. *NYC needs a football team and a venue for major events and concerts. *This is it. *It's on the west side on the water, by the highway, out of the way of most things.

They just need to do it, already. *

chris
June 19th, 2003, 02:36 PM
I wish it were in a different location, but I'm not fighting it. I think the Olympics would be a really great thing for New York.

JerzDevl2000
June 19th, 2003, 04:26 PM
Way to expose those socialists Chris! One of these days, the West Side will get one of those "greedy capitalists" as a rep. and that'll be the end if it. I bet the people who used to live on 6th Ave. in the 1950's felt bad that they're pristine neighborhood had to give way to the "overdevelopment" on it now!

I'd sooner take a REAL development than the Olympics for the next 20 years. New York city's population could be over 10 million by 2020. A new stadium on the west side won't do one bit of good for Water Tunnel #3, the new subway lines that will make just the SAS look like a hold in the ground. We will need, reclamation of the waterfront and MASSIVE *infrastructure improvements including the Cross-Harbor Freight Rail Tunnel, a new and hopefully underground Gowanus Expressway, the rebulding of lower Manhattan, access to the regilons core, and many more that the Olympics will divert.

I hope for God's sake that we do not get attacked again. Many have said that we lack redundancy in our transit system and infrastructure. I could care less about this stadium on the west side and the city should too. It should be first and foremost concerned with redundancy in our transit facilities and leave the free-market up to putting a stadium there. It's time to plan for the future correctly, rezone the west side, and get to more pressing issues!

TonyO
June 19th, 2003, 06:12 PM
Quote: from JerzDevl2000 on 3:26 pm on June 19, 2003
It should be first and foremost concerned with redundancy in our transit facilities and leave the free-market up to putting a stadium there.

Actually, the free market is going to be putting up the cost of the stadium itself. *That was announced when the plans were unveiled. *That's better than a lot of cities (Seattle in particular) where the public pays for multiple sports stadiums for private sports clubs.

JerzDevl2000
June 20th, 2003, 01:15 AM
If this stadium turns out to be for the Jets only and not just for the Olympics, then I seriously doubt that Robert Wood Johnson IV (a.k.a. "Woody" Johnson) would put up all of the money for this. He's worth billions and could easily foot most or all of the bill.

It's a shame, most of the Jet fans are on Long Island, and there's a lot of room next to Shea. Am I missing something?

ZippyTheChimp
June 20th, 2003, 09:24 AM
The area next to Shea Stadium will be used for the new Mets
home, when they decide to build it. Combination football/baseball stadiums don't work well. The vast junkyards to the east of Shea were considered, but they are a toxic wasteland, and cleanup would be long and expensive.

If the city wins the 2012 Olympics, the preferred (by Doctoroff at least) location for the Olympic stadium is the west side railyards.

The Jets and NFL have stated that they would pay for most (I
don't know what most is) of the stadium if the city builds the platform over the railyards.

There will not be parking facilities for 30,000 cars as in the Meadowlands.

Supposedly, the stadium will be multiuse, able to accommodate convention functions, concerts, basketball, and hockey.

STT757
June 20th, 2003, 06:33 PM
Woody Johnson has committed to put up $600 Million of his own money, the City is going to pay for the deck above the rail yards which the stadium will be built upon and other various infastructure improvements.

NYguy
November 13th, 2003, 09:18 PM
Businessweek...
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/nov2003/nf20031113_9011_db038.htm


A New York State of Mind for the Jets
The NFL franchise is set to announce a $1 billion Manhattan stadium that the Big Apple hopes will ultimately help land the Olympics

The Jets are flying back to New York. The National Football League team that has been playing across the Hudson River in Giants Stadium in East Rutherford, N.J., for 19 years is expected to announce in the next two months that it will build a $1 billion, retractable-dome stadium on Manhattan's West Side, BusinessWeek has learned. The stadium would be a big boost to New York's bid to host the 2012 Olympics.

Under owner Robert Wood "Woody" Johnson IV, an heir to the Johnson & Johnson (JNJ ) fortune, the Jets will pay for the bulk of the project, with taxpayers footing a still-undetermined bill for infrastructure, including transportation upgrades. The new stadium, which will also serve as a convention center and arena, will be built on a platform to be constructed over Midtown rail yards between Penn Station and the Hudson River on Manhattan's West Side. The NFL would provide some financing through a special loan program for new stadium construction.

SUBWAY DELIVERY. A proposal for a West Side stadium was first trumpeted by former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani in the late 1990s, when the New York Yankees were threatening to abandon the Big Apple. Mayor Michael Bloomberg was less enthusiastic at first but, along with Governor George Pataki, he has since embraced the idea, hoping it will help win the Olympic games and even possibly a Super Bowl. The International Olympics Committee will vote on the site for the 2012 games in 2005.

City officials have estimated that such a complex could eventually generate $2 billion a year in new tax revenues. Nearly 70% of those attending Jets games would use public transportation to get to the stadium, according to economic development officials.

Spokespersons for the Jets, Bloomberg, and Pataki declined to comment about an announcement, but sources say Jets President Jay Cross, hired in 2000 to help get a stadium deal done, has made great strides in recent months. Cross helped the National Basketball Assn.'s Toronto Raptors and the Miami Heat build new arenas. A Manhattan stadium announcement could come before the end of the NFL season in January, say sources.

ONE RING. The Jets would play their first season in Manhattan in 2009 under the plan. The team's lease at Giants Stadium in the New Jersey Meadowlands complex expires in 2008. The Jets earlier this year opted out of participating in a $300 million renovation of that stadium.

Struggling this year with a 3-6 record, the Jets made the American Football Conference playoffs last year, but have made only one Super Bowl appearance -- a dramatic victory in 1969 -- in their 40-year history. Under owner Johnson, the team now hopes a return to Gotham will change the course of history.

krulltime
November 13th, 2003, 09:28 PM
Awesome!!! 8)

NYguy
November 22nd, 2003, 08:52 AM
DAILY NEWS...

Mike: Stadium deal closer

By MICHAEL SAUL

Mayor Bloomberg is looking to bring some greenery to Manhattan's West Side - as in Gang Green.

Bloomberg said yesterday he's hopeful the city will soon strike a deal with the New York Jets to build a stadium there.

The administration is proposing to expand the Javits Convention Center and construct the stadium for the Jets nearby. The stadium is a major component of the city's bid for the 2012 Summer Olympic Games.

"If I can get the Jets to help pay for part of the Javits Center expansion and all they've got to do is use it eight Sundays a year, that would be a great deal for the city," Bloomberg said yesterday on his weekly radio show.

A spokesman for the Jets declined to comment yesterday, but the mayor said he's hopeful a deal will be struck within the next year.

Others have said that an announcement may be only months away.

Bloomberg said the area surrounding the convention center is "phenomenally valuable" and needs to be developed.

To make the neighborhood more accessible, the city is moving forward with plans to extend the No. 7 line from Times Square to the far West Side.

The city's Olympic bid calls for a stadium to be built for the opening and closing ceremonies and the track and field events.

The city, however, won't find out until 2005 whether it will be the Olympic host city.

kliq6
November 22nd, 2003, 05:53 PM
the stadium is a good idea bnut the seven line extension and Javits expasion are the keys to this area being redeloped

TLOZ Link5
November 22nd, 2003, 07:00 PM
One subway line will not be enough to provide sufficient access to a 40 million square-foot business district. I've heard that there are plans for a light rail or monorail loop around the perimeter of the development area.

kliq6
November 22nd, 2003, 08:52 PM
yeah i heard they will loop the seven train from 34th and iith back to the new Penn Station. Is it really 40 million sf of space, i thought there would be more residntial buildings then commercial space

billyblancoNYC
November 23rd, 2003, 12:05 AM
I think 40 office and 12 residential. Nice.

In addition to the 7, there might be a light rail, above ground train looping around 42nd down to 34st, I think.

emmeka
November 23rd, 2003, 04:50 AM
This is the kind of thing that i like to hear, giant projects that involve creating a whole new area.

NYguy
November 23rd, 2003, 10:09 AM
I think 40 office and 12 residential. Nice.

In addition to the 7, there might be a light rail, above ground train looping around 42nd down to 34st, I think.

I think its 28 office and 12 residential, but I could be wrong. One good thing about the location of the new stadium: It would be over the LIRR rail yards, where shuttles could easily be run from Penn Station on game days. But its also just a short walk from Penn Station, which no doubt the majority of people would probably do rather than cram a crowded train.

ZippyTheChimp
November 23rd, 2003, 10:34 AM
My initial enthusiasm for the stadium has changed to acceptance as a last resort. The key to the project is development over the railyard, and with the stadium, the city gets NFL funding for a facility that can be used as convention space.

A more integrated design would be to expand the convention center, with possibly a park on top that connects to the waterfront. The funding, as stated in an article, could be done with Liberty bonds.

Considering the Olympics, the stadium makes more sense in Flushing Meadow. Corona Park is already part of the planning by
NYC2012. (http://www.nyc2012.com/news.20020613.1.html)
As for the Jets, if they are willing to partially fund a stadium on the West Side, why not in Flushing?

In my opinion, the proposed stadium is unremarkable in design, and seems to be constrained by its location. Perhaps something more interesting can be developed in an open area.
http://forums.wirednewyork.com/viewtopic.php?t=1335&start=0

NoyokA
November 25th, 2003, 06:26 PM
Here's a new rendering of the Jets Stadium and another of that mysteriously tall tower:

http://galleries.soaringtowers.org/albums/Stern/Jets.jpg

TLOZ Link5
November 25th, 2003, 07:01 PM
It looks like Union Square in Hong Kong.

kliq6
November 26th, 2003, 02:33 PM
Ive heard the city plans, 30 million sf and over 4,000 new aprtments

emmeka
November 26th, 2003, 02:41 PM
It looks like Union Square in Hong Kong.

Thats exactly what I thought but I like the stadium more now.

billyblancoNYC
November 26th, 2003, 04:06 PM
Ive heard the city plans, 30 million sf and over 4,000 new aprtments

I think 28 mill of office and 12mill of residential, so it should be more than 4K.

ZippyTheChimp
November 29th, 2003, 01:48 AM
November 29, 2003

Jets Stadium in Manhattan Moves Closer, but Issues Remain

By CHARLES V. BAGLI

State and city officials say they are inching toward a tentative agreement with the owners of the New York Jets to split the $1.5 billion cost of building a new football stadium over Manhattan's West Side rail yards.

An announcement could come as soon as January, the officials said. Under the terms of what officials said would be a nonbinding agreement, the Jets would pay up to $800 million for a modern riverfront stadium, which would also serve as an Olympic stadium if the city wins its bid for the 2012 Summer Olympics. The city and the state, in turn, have generally agreed to pay $300 million to $400 million to build a retractable roof, the air-conditioning system and a platform structure over the rail yards on which the stadium would sit.

But lurking beneath the expected announcement are a number of contentious unresolved issues that could delay or even scuttle the stadium project.

There is no agreement on how to pay for the extension of the No. 7 subway line from Times Square to the stadium, which is considered a crucial element of the West Side redevelopment. Nor is there consensus on the size and scope of a related project, the $1.5 billion expansion of the nearby Jacob K. Javits Convention Center, say state and city officials involved in those projects. Proponents of the Javits expansion contend that it is more important than the stadium to the city's economic life.

Finally, the city has yet to release its long-promised financial plan for the transformation of the West Side, including the stadium, an expanded convention center, new zoning for commercial and residential construction and parks and the subway extension, as the cost has climbed to $5 billion from an estimated $2.68 billion. The financial plan would presumably detail how the various projects could be turned into reality without tapping into the state's or city's current revenues, something the city has promised not to do.

"There are a series of questions that have yet to be answered about the financing, phasing and urban design," said Robert D. Yaro, president of the Regional Plan Association, a nonprofit research and advocacy group for the metropolitan region. "This is the city's most ambitious and important economic development plan in the last quarter century."

Nevertheless, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg dropped broad hints during his weekly radio program just before Thanksgiving that he hoped the city would soon strike a deal with the Jets, just as Business Week reported that a deal was imminent. But in an interview Friday, Daniel L. Doctoroff, deputy mayor for economic development and the founder of the city's Olympic bid committee, refused to set a date for any announcement.

"Progress is continuing to be made on virtually every front," Mr. Doctoroff said. "But this is an incredibly complicated jigsaw puzzle. We want to make sure that we have all the right pieces in all the right places."

In an effort to cut costs, city and state officials are considering scaling back the expansion of the Javits Center and reducing the number of stations on the subway extension, at least in the first phase. Mr. Doctoroff has said that the city's stadium obligation and the subway extension will be financed under a still unreleased plan using tax revenues from new development in the area over the next 30 years.

But the city has several reasons for wanting to move more rapidly on the stadium. The team owners, who have spent $10 million on lobbyists and designs for a stadium, have demanded that the state and the city issue "a letter of intent, or some kind of moral commitment" for the project before the team spends any more money, according to a team executive. The Jets' lease at Giants Stadium in New Jersey, their current home, expires at the end of 2008 and the team wants a home of its own for the 2009 season. That means construction has to begin soon.

Officials say the Bloomberg administration also wants to convey a sense of momentum for its Olympic bid with an announcement about the stadium, which would be used for Olympic opening and closing ceremonies. The International Olympic Committee will not select a 2012 site until the summer of 2005, but competing cities have to show some progress on their plans before then.

"It's important that decisions about the stadium get made fairly quickly," Mr. Yaro said.

The Jets and city and state officials point to the team's $800 million commitment as the largest single contribution toward stadium construction by any professional sports team. But the cost of the proposed West Side stadium is also double or triple that of the new stadiums built in Seattle, Philadelphia and Chicago, which cost $400 million to $500 million, according to the National Football League.

Many economists contend that stadiums are relatively poor public investments because they do little more than enrich the teams. But city and state officials say that the economic value of the Jets stadium is enhanced by its links to the Javits Center, whose site is between 34th and 39th Streets along 11th Avenue, just north of the rail yards. With a retractable roof, the Jets say the stadium could be used for 150 other events a year, including convention meetings and plenary sessions, concerts and other sporting events.

But there still is a great deal of controversy surrounding the stadium, its connection to Javits and other issues related to the West Side plans.

The city's stadium plan and rezoning proposal for commercial and residential development will face almost inevitable legal challenges by community groups and others who oppose the projects. Jerry Schoenfeld, chairman of the Shubert Organization, which owns half the Broadway theaters, has become increasingly outspoken about what he says are the potentially negative impacts of a stadium on the nearby theater district, Times Square and the surrounding neighborhood.

"This is all fantasy," said John Fisher, a member of the Westside Coalition, an amalgam of 35 community groups, referring to the size and complexity of the city's plans.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority has said it favors extending the No. 7 line, which would bring office workers and football fans to the West Side and spark development of the relatively low-slung neighborhood. But the agency says it has no money in its capital budget for the project, whose cost ranges from $1.6 billion to $2.3 billion.

Peter S. Kalikow, chairman of the M.T.A., has also made it clear that his agency wants to be compensated for allowing the Jets to build over its rail yards, on the blocks bounded by 11th and 12th Avenues, between 30th and 34th Streets. But in what could be a stumbling block, Mr. Kalikow wants to be able to sell far more development rights from the yards than the city now envisions in its proposed rezoning of the West Side.

But the most public dispute reveals the fault line between stadium supporters and advocates for the expansion of the Javits Center over the pace and priority of their respective projects. It also illustrates the interlocking relationship between the stadium, the convention center and the subway line.

On Nov. 19, the board of the Javits operating corporation passed a resolution stating that the city's and state's current plans for the Javits center were "unacceptable," because they would result in a long delay.

For nearly a decade, the Javits Center's operating corporation and the hotel industry have sought to double the size of the convention center by expanding north to 42nd Street, which they said would generate an additional $600 million a year in convention, hotel and restaurant business. Robert E. Boyle, chairman of the Javits operating corporation, has expressed doubts about how much the stadium could really be used for conventions, and the agency's Web site does not even mention the plans to the stadium.

"The mayor constantly refers to travel and tourism as being an industry that is ripe for growth," said Jonathan M. Tisch, chief executive of Loews Hotels and chairman of New York City and Company, the city's convention and visitors bureau. An expanded convention center, he said, "would be an enormous catalyst to achieve that goal."

State officials tried to quell the uprising, telling reporters that the resolution adopted by the Javits board was unauthorized. They said that the planning and development of the Javits Center would be handled by the center's development corporation, which is headed by Charles A. Gargano, chairman of the Empire State Development Corporation.

"We could have several alternatives," Mr. Gargano said. "We're working with the governor and the mayor on a plan that will work."

One problem is that the M.T.A.'s Michael Quill bus depot lies in the path of the Javits expansion, on 11th Avenue between 40th and 41st Streets. The M.T.A., which bought and renovated the depot in the mid-1990's for about $120 million, does not want to give up the garage until a new one is built, probably under the stadium platform.

But it now appears that construction of the new $400 million garage cannot start until 2009. That would delay the Javits expansion until the garage is completed in 2013, which infuriates the hotel industry.

One possibility is that Javits would be expanded only to the Quill garage on 40th Street, until a second phase could start sometime in the future, a move that Javits supporters greet with dismay.

"We need to get this built," Joseph E. Spinnato, president of the Hotel Association of New York City, said of the convention center. "This is a moneymaker for the city and the state. But to be held hostage to any other part of the West Side development is not something that we're particularly happy about."


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

billyblancoNYC
November 29th, 2003, 02:38 AM
So frustrating in so many ways.

tmg
November 29th, 2003, 06:51 PM
What's frustrating is Doctoroff's and the mayor's breathtaking lack of honesty and transparency on this whole project.

I, for one, would love to see something spectacular happen on the Far West Side. But the city needs to (1) stop trying to strongarm the Javits Center into embracing a stadium that it doesn't need, and (2) come clean with the public about how much this whole thing will cost and how it will be financed. The idea that this could be funded with tax increment financing, without competing with other city or MTA investment needs, is just silly.

I think DCP is doing a great job with its planning efforts for Lower Manhattan, Downtown Brooklyn, and other areas. But on the Far West Side, the city seems to be wearing honesty blinders loaned to it by the Bush Administration.

krulltime
November 29th, 2003, 07:23 PM
WHY does it have to be SO complicated??? :? Just built something...The area needs something to start the whole West Side Development. If the stadium is being offer half/half of $$$... well that sounds fair. Doesn't it?

krulltime
November 29th, 2003, 08:01 PM
'Many economists contend that stadiums are relatively poor public investments because they do little more than enrich the teams.' By CHARLES V. BAGLI, November 29, 2003

:? - If they refer when stadiums are built in areas where it doesnt benefit the city at all such as in Philadelphia...where the Football and Beseball Stadiums are being built in an area where they are surrounded by parking garages and no restaurants or nothing else that benefits the community in the 'Cities' as opposed to the 'Suburbs', then I agree with the economists. But if they are built within an area where there are stores, restaurants, hotels, and public transportation and who knows other uses that can be used to revenue in taxes that will sure benefit the city then built the thing. That area in the West Side has nothing but car dealerships, wherehouses and parking garages. While most of manhattan feels like 24/7, not a single soul is found in that area after night fall. Lets bring people and put it to more use.

kliq6
November 30th, 2003, 01:58 PM
the javits expasnion is the most important, leave it to NYc to build bus depot, above grtound in one ofthe most valuable undrdeveloped areas in the whole world

ZippyTheChimp
November 30th, 2003, 02:09 PM
Krultime,

The key word in that statement is relatively. If you compare the benefits of the stadium to what's there now, of course the benefit is obvious. In this case it should be weighed against the convention center expansion.

The stadium itself is being promoted as mixed-use, as a facility for the Javitts.

Pottebaum
November 30th, 2003, 02:23 PM
http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/03/30/realestate/30COV.468.jpg
Rendering of the proposed Jets stadium shows the two panels making up the retractable roof.

Are there actually going to be rather large buildings around the new stadium?

Thanks :)

emmeka
November 30th, 2003, 02:32 PM
Most probably. Any excuse for a skyscraper. ( Which im not complaining about, the more the merrier)

BPC
November 30th, 2003, 05:37 PM
Are there actually going to be rather large buildings around the new stadium? Thanks :)

The skycrapers depicted in the drawing do not actually exist. Nor have any developers been lined up to build them. Rather, they are just wishful thinking by Doctoroff et al, who want to claim that this boondoggle will generate sufficient new tax revenues to pay back the billion of dollars in city bonds necessary to fund the project. Personally, I have a hard time believing that there will be much interest in such huge office towers in that neighborhood. If there were, they would have been built already. Eight extra Jets home games on winter Sunday afternoons won't make the neighborhood any more marketable in that respect.

Incidentally, although it is not altogether clear from the picture, one of the reasons the project is so absurdly expensive is because it calls for yet another (!) automobile tunnel for the portion of West Street adjacent to the new stadium. It seems that the politically connected construction interests behind the rightfully-defeated Westway project are determined to reconstruct that project one link at a time.

As for the stadium itself, I think the actual design is pretty nifty, which is rare for NFL architecture. One practical question, however: The drawing shows a clear glass wall forming the entire western wall of the football field. During football winters, the sun starts setting by this time of day (4:00 pm or so), when the Jets will be still playing many of their games. Won't blinding sunsets interfere with the game?

TLOZ Link5
November 30th, 2003, 11:32 PM
A major reason that the skyscrapers haven't been built is because there isn't sufficient transportation in that area. The extension of the 7 train, which would go along 42nd Street, turn down to the Javits Center, and then loop around to Penn Station, will make or break large-scale development in the area. A light-rail loop is also waiting in the wings.

billyblancoNYC
December 1st, 2003, 01:05 AM
Also, much of the area is zoned for low-rise industrial, I believe. This new zoning would promote skyscraper and hi-rise residential, plus plan for parks and more public tranportation.

The stadium is the anchor b/c it will not only be for the Jets, but it will host concerts and events as well as be an "expansion" of Javits, which needs it. It will also host many a Super Bowl, as it is in NYC and will have a retactable dome. It could also host NCAA tournament games and be the main attraction in bringing NYC the 2012 games.

It's a great idea and I hope all the BS is settled soon.

kliq6
December 1st, 2003, 11:34 AM
The council is suppose to vote on the land zoning next year, however with thge city council in there now, they may keep the zoining the same for all we know

emmeka
December 1st, 2003, 03:00 PM
Lets hope for skyscrapers in a little forest. I love watching areas develop over time, like times square. although i like it even more if it happens in a few years.

BPC
December 1st, 2003, 10:05 PM
A major reason that the skyscrapers haven't been built is because there isn't sufficient transportation in that area. The extension of the 7 train, which would go along 42nd Street, turn down to the Javits Center, and then loop around to Penn Station, will make or break large-scale development in the area. A light-rail loop is also waiting in the wings.

This makes some sense. Still, subways alone are not always enough. One need only look at the neighborhood around the Worldwide Plaza (which is far more centralized and better served by public transportation) to understand just how badly these sorts of projections can go awry. At a minimum, I hope that, before the MTA spends a billion or more dollars to run a subway to nowhere (for the time being), it will complete (or at least commit to fully fund) the Second Avenue subway, which would serve one million New Yorkers desperately underserved by public transportation.

ZippyTheChimp
December 1st, 2003, 10:21 PM
An article from this thread (http://forums.wirednewyork.com/viewtopic.php?t=140&start=15) on transit choices:

November 26, 2003

Weighing Transit Possibilities, New Study Follows the Money

By MICHAEL LUO

The wish list of mass transit projects that local, state and federal politicians have drawn up for the city is long and ambitious: the Second Avenue subway, Long Island Rail Road service to the East Side, the No. 7 subway extension, a relocated Pennsylvania Station, a transit hub for Lower Manhattan, and the list goes on.

More important, the projects are expensive, with the potential of costing more than $50 billion. Although everyone has a favorite, money is limited, and some will probably lose out. So how to choose?

One of the city's leading business groups, the Partnership for New York City, has weighed in on the question with a study that evaluates seven of the proposals on whether they pay off economically.

Among the report's conclusions, already generating controversy: the price tag for the Second Avenue subway exceeds its economic development benefits by nearly $2.7 billion, largely because it would take 17 years to build.

The report, conducted for the partnership by the Boston Consulting Group and the Urban Transportation Research Center at the City University of New York, assesses economic development by incorporating real estate development, the increase in property values, jobs and income and sales and tourism. The subway project would produce $12.6 billion in benefits, but it would cost $15.3 billion, it says.

A proposed passenger rail tunnel under the Hudson, connecting New Jersey and Midtown, and an extension of the PATH system to Newark Liberty International Airport would also yield little economic benefit for the city, according to the report, although it does not consider the benefits for New Jersey.

Some of the study's clear winners include the transit hub for Lower Manhattan, the extension of the No. 7 subway line and the relocation of Penn Station.

Both Gov. George E. Pataki and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority have been emphasizing the Second Avenue subway and the East Side Access project, which would connect the Long Island Rail Road to Grand Central Terminal.

"The M.T.A.'s committed to a full build of the Second Avenue subway," William Wheeler, director of special project development and planning for the authority, said yesterday.

He pointed out that the project, along with the East Side Access proposal, had won support under the criteria set up by the Federal Transit Administration. The criteria include the number of customers benefited and the reduction in crowding.

The Second Avenue subway also has a powerful advocate in the speaker of the State Assembly, Sheldon Silver, who represents the Lower East Side. The report fails to fully recognize the project's economic benefits, Mr. Silver said. This includes its impact on Lower Manhattan, sparing commuters from an overcrowded Lexington Avenue line.

Decisions about transportation infrastructure, however, are too often politically based, said Kathryn S. Wylde, president of the partnership.

"It's not thinking about how investment should be designed to grow the economy and to open up the next generation of economic activity," she said.


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

kliq6
December 2nd, 2003, 01:04 PM
live on the upper east side and should presumablly benifit the most with less crowding on the 456 trains, however this is a waste of time, it will destroy hundreeds of business along the route and the last i looked no office development is really on second avenue, but the Far westside is NYC last chance to try to gain back its status as a business city and try to keep the finacial industry here

JMGarcia
December 2nd, 2003, 05:42 PM
The best argument I've heard for the 2nd Ave. subway is that it will carry more people than the entire rail transit system of any other american city.

I'm not so sure how hundreds of businesses will be displaced either. I can see that happening only in the space where the actual stops are built.

Eugenius
December 2nd, 2003, 06:15 PM
I would also add that the value of the commercial real estate along the route, and particularly around the actual stops will skyrocket, as it will now be accessible to a whole new range of consumers. So for every business that gets displaced (though I don't see why they can't still function while construction proceeds), there is a better, more upscale business waiting to move in when construction completes.

Clarknt67
December 2nd, 2003, 06:18 PM
This makes some sense. Still, subways alone are not always enough. One need only look at the neighborhood around the Worldwide Plaza (which is far more centralized and better served by public transportation) to understand just how badly these sorts of projections can go awry.

Can you explain what you mean by go awry? the west side above chelsea has had a major resurgence in the 10 years I've been in the city. Granted it's not the prettiest area, but decent, and getting nicer every year.

It's not until you get to 10th or 11th ave that it gets kind of ugly, which goes to show how important subway access is. Once you get more than 2 avenue blocks from a subway, developers lose interest in an area (presumably because they assume renters/buys will also).

Clarknt67
December 2nd, 2003, 06:28 PM
The best argument I've heard for the 2nd Ave. subway is that it will carry more people than the entire rail transit system of any other american city.

I'm not so sure how hundreds of businesses will be displaced either. I can see that happening only in the space where the actual stops are built.

From what I've gleaned, they're assumming that the tunneling will tear up blocks of 2nd ave. above ground for months (or even years) at a time, making business in- or less accessible from the street. The drop-off in business will bankrupt many small businesses.

(All I know, is the MTA's been replacing an escalator at the Borough Hall stop for literally 2 years. They finally unveiled it, and it only works sporadically now. I ask you, can you imagine this situation happening at say, a Saks Fifth Avenue store? I'm sure Saks can get an escalator fixed in a week, it takes the gov't to screw a project up this bad.)

It kinda makes me wonder how bad they'd screw up the 2nd ave. subway (although I'm totally in favor of it).

BPC
December 2nd, 2003, 09:33 PM
live on the upper east side and should presumablly benifit the most with less crowding on the 456 trains, however this is a waste of time, it will destroy hundreeds of business along the route and the last i looked no office development is really on second avenue, but the Far westside is NYC last chance to try to gain back its status as a business city and try to keep the finacial industry here

It would benefit far more than just the Upper East Side. A Second Avenue Subway would also be a great boon for the Downtown economy, as well as to anyone else who (like me) rides the overcrowded 4/5/6 everyday, which includes lots of Brooklynites. As for disruptions, any construction project will have those. It is usually the affected community(ies) which are best able to determine whether the benefits from the proposed project justify those costs. In this case, the idea of a Second Avenue Subway is very popular with Downtown and East Siders, as reflected by the fact that our elected officials have been screaming for decades for this project to go forwaerd. Contrast that with community opposition to the West Street tunnel, as reflected in recent news reports and in the near unanimous opposition of local elected officials.

JMGarcia
December 2nd, 2003, 10:27 PM
lol - gotta give you credit, you're a man (or woman) with an agenda.

BPC
December 2nd, 2003, 11:19 PM
lol - gotta give you credit, you're a man (or woman) with an agenda.

I'm playing to win, bro.

BPC
December 3rd, 2003, 12:34 AM
This makes some sense. Still, subways alone are not always enough. One need only look at the neighborhood around the Worldwide Plaza (which is far more centralized and better served by public transportation) to understand just how badly these sorts of projections can go awry.

Can you explain what you mean by go awry? the west side above chelsea has had a major resurgence in the 10 years I've been in the city. Granted it's not the prettiest area, but decent, and getting nicer every year.

Sure. Back in the last real estate boom in the mid to late 1980s, the City convinced some unfortunate developer and some noteworthy tenants (most prominently, the law firm Cravath) to build and locate at Worldwide Plaza over on 8th Avenue around West 50th Street. The plan was that this would be part of a grand new office development, a sort of Midtown West. All the same kind of propaganda we're hearing now about the Javitz neighborhoood. Anyway, it never happened. That tower remains in its lonesome. Even the movie cinemas in the building could not survive. Eventually, in the late 1990s, another real estate boom came around, and the area around it did perk up, as you correctly point out, BUT as a residential neighborhood. The grand predictions about a Midtown West never happened. I believe that the same kind of organic development could eventally happen around Javitz. Those industrial buildings can make good art galleries, loft space, etc. Take a look at what is going on in the Lower East Side, with no subways anywhere even remotely in the vicinity, and without a billion dollars in taxpayer subsidies. But the fall of the Soviet Union should have taught us that the free market usually triumphs over this kind of central planning.

NYguy
December 5th, 2003, 05:20 PM
Daily News...

Rush to get ball rolling

By MICHAEL SAUL

Construction of a new Jets stadium on Manhattan's far West Side could begin before the summer of 2005, a top City Hall official told the Daily News yesterday.

Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff said yesterday that the city wants to begin work before July 2005, when the International Olympic Committee selects the host city for the 2012 Summer Olympic Games.

"That's certainly our goal," said Doctoroff, founder of the city's Olympic bid.

Charles Gargano, who is working on the stadium project at the behest of Gov. Pataki, said the state supports the quick construction timetable.

"If we don't do something by July 2005, if we don't have a concrete plan, we can't bid for the Olympics," Gargano said. "I support what Doctoroff said."

Gargano said the city, the state and the Jets have a tentative deal that calls for the football team to pay $800 million for the construction of a new stadium. The city and the state would pay roughly $300 million each for a retractable roof and for a platform on which the stadium would stand.

Doctoroff said the Jets' investment will be the "largest single investment in a comparable facility in world history."

"The city and state are both very confident that the incremental taxes generated out of that facility will more than pay for the investments we have to make in the platform and the roof," Doctoroff said. "It's a great investment for the city."

Opponents of the stadium said yesterday they are outraged that the city is going forward with what they call a massive boondoggle.

"It takes an hour to get to the Lincoln Tunnel now. Can you imagine an 85,000-seat stadium emptying into the area after an event?" said Walter Mankoff, chairman of Manhattan Community Board 4, representing Chelsea and Hell's Kitchen.

"We think it would be a serious mistake if it went through," Mankoff added. "We're very upset about it."

John Fisher, who heads the Clinton Special District Coalition, said the city can ill afford to spend money on a new stadium that the neighborhood neither wants nor needs.

"Neighborhoods have a right to exist. Communities have a right to exist," Fisher said. "The West Side is not a wasteland."

Doctoroff and other city officials met yesterday with investment banks interested in underwriting a $2 billion bond sale to pay for the extension of the No. 7 line from Times Square to the West Side as well as the construction of a platform on which a park and office buildings would stand.

The disclosure of the planned bond was revealed in yesterday's Daily News.

NYguy
December 8th, 2003, 04:39 PM
Daily News...

Count the costs to land the Jets

City Hall and Albany are charging ahead with a scheme to build a $1.4 billion, 75,000-seat football stadium on Manhattan's West Side - a new home for the Jets. Let's call a timeout to review the game plan.

The three players here, the team and the Bloomberg and Pataki administrations, are moving fast - each looking at the stadium as an element in a different long-range plan. The net effect could be to breathe life into a dead zone on the Hudson and form a cornerstone of the city's bid for the 2012 Olympics.

The natural question is: At what cost to taxpayers? State economic development czar Charles Gargano and Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff promise they will not put up a dime of public money unless a stadium will produce enough revenue to cover the public's investment. That's a sound starting point. They must hold to it.

As for the stadium itself, on paper and in artist's renderings it's a fabulous-looking creation that would be built on a platform over the Long Island Rail Road yards at 33rd St.

The structure would have a retractable roof, generate power from wind and sun and could be converted into convention space and a 20,000-seat indoor arena, both of which would boost the nearby Javits Convention Center. There would be new parkland along the river and underground parking for the trucks that now service the Javits facility.

The costs break down as follows. The Jets kick in $800 million, the largest private investment ever in such a stadium. The city and state each pony up about $300 million to pay for the platform and the retractable roof.

Those are huge public investments and would normally be rejected out of hand because the state and city, both fiscally strapped, have far better uses for the money - school construction, for one. However, Doctoroff and Jets President Jay Cross insist that a stadium will bring an estimated $80 million a year in new revenue into the city, more than financing the project.

Doctoroff cites, for example, income taxes on player salaries New York would collect if the team returned home from New Jersey, sales taxes on tickets and increased hotel taxes generated by greater Javits center business. These assumptions cry out for closer analysis before the project gets the go-ahead.

The Jets, Doctoroff and Gargano will have to convince the public on another crucial issue: parking. The proponents swear up and down that the stadium can be built without adding a single parking space in Manhattan. They contend that most fans would arrive by mass transit or leave cars in Jersey to take a new ferry service across the river. Skepticism is clearly in order.

Why are they in such a rush? Because the Jets want to return to New York as quickly as possible, Gargano wants a much-needed expansion of the Javits Center and Doctoroff wants construction underway by 2005, when the city's Olympic bid will be voted on. And he emphasizes how the stadium would help spur the creation of a newly vibrant and vital neighborhood.

We're all for that - as long as the price is right.

Eugenius
December 8th, 2003, 09:01 PM
The best argument I've heard for the 2nd Ave. subway is that it will carry more people than the entire rail transit system of any other american city.

I'm not so sure how hundreds of businesses will be displaced either. I can see that happening only in the space where the actual stops are built.

From what I've gleaned, they're assumming that the tunneling will tear up blocks of 2nd ave. above ground for months (or even years) at a time, making business in- or less accessible from the street. The drop-off in business will bankrupt many small businesses.

(All I know, is the MTA's been replacing an escalator at the Borough Hall stop for literally 2 years. They finally unveiled it, and it only works sporadically now. I ask you, can you imagine this situation happening at say, a Saks Fifth Avenue store? I'm sure Saks can get an escalator fixed in a week, it takes the gov't to screw a project up this bad.)

It kinda makes me wonder how bad they'd screw up the 2nd ave. subway (although I'm totally in favor of it).Saks closes down every night, for something like 12 hours. That gives the maintenance staff a huge amount of time in calm, deserted surroundings to fix any mechanical problem. Subways work 24/7. In addition, the subway escalators take much more of a beating than the in-store ones. People don't run at Saks, nor do they litter indiscriminately.

As for the bankrupting of 2nd ave. businesses, the thing that would actually do the bankrupting would be the high cost of retail space in relation to the reduced shopping traffic during construction. Since high rents will not be sustainable during the construction period, the rents will come down, allowing stores to remain in business. In the end, the people whose bottom line will suffer will be the landlords. But then, those are the people who will most benefit from a completed subway line, so it's a fair trade-off.

NYguy
December 8th, 2003, 11:43 PM
Quote from an article in today's NY Times...


The Jets have their own deadline because their lease ends after the 2008 season.

"Giant Stadium is red and blue," Cross said. "It is clear who is in control there. This is a departure point."

The Jets want no part of returning to Shea Stadium or even a new stadium in Queens. It must be Manhattan, they say, to attract around 150 other events a year under the proposed roof.

Cross insists that the Jets are not depending on New York's winning the 2012 Summer Games. The optimistic Doctoroff, when pressed about a possible loss of the 2012 Games, conceded that "the entire West Side plan goes forward."

krulltime
December 9th, 2003, 01:38 AM
'The Jets want no part of returning to Shea Stadium or even a new stadium in Queens. It must be Manhattan, they say, to attract around 150 other events a year under the proposed roof. '

:) Well no other options...Case close.

Kris
December 9th, 2003, 07:29 AM
December 9, 2003

SPORTS OF THE TIMES

Jets' Plans Can't Depend on the Olympics

By GEORGE VECSEY

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/12/09/sports/09jets-big.jpg
A rendering of the proposed stadium in Manhattan that would be the home of the Jets and the linchpin of a bid for the 2012 Summer Games.

IT'S over. There will be no convictions for the two Salt Lake City officials who presided over freebies and cushy jobs to help lure the 2002 Winter Games to Utah. A judge threw out the case last week.

But repercussions from that long morality play will affect another American city currently lusting after the dubious honor of playing host to the 2012 Summer Games.

New York has juiced up its Olympic bid with an impressive-sounding $800 million offer from the Jets to help build a palace in Manhattan. But many roadblocks remain.

One is named London and another Paris, two of the eight other cities bidding for the 2012 Games. Another roadblock may be worldwide political fallout from the United States' incursion into Iraq.

Still another roadblock is the recent disarray of the United States Olympic Committee, along with the international perception that American track and field and Major League Baseball are shielding their eyes from performance-enhancing drugs. And the bribe scandal in Salt Lake City does not help.

"The anti-American sentiment is very real and palpable," said David D'Alessandro, the president of John Hancock Financial Services, a major sponsor of international sports.

To be sure, New York has a few little things in its favor — glamour, money, talent, expertise, persuasiveness and landmark facilities.

The big city is not accustomed to being a long shot or an also-ran in anything, but Andrew Zimbalist, the sports economist from Smith College, rates New York's chances for 2012 as 1 in 50.

Nevertheless, New York (being New York) forges straight ahead, the pungent tang of real-estate development blending with the illusory aroma of Olympic fever.

In 1994, Daniel L. Doctoroff, then a money manager, began his eloquent campaign for an Olympic stadium that would foster development on the West Side. (Whether a gigantic stadium, hunkering alongside the Hudson River, is good for the people and the ambience of the West Side is quite another issue.)

Coming on board in 2000, the Jets have offered $800 million to build the New York Sports and Convention Center (puh-leeze, not a stadium) that would be the linchpin of an Olympic bid.

"There's been an evolution, but not a change in thinking," said Doctoroff, now a deputy mayor of New York, who called the Jets' involvement "a happy coincidence."

Robert Wood Johnson IV, the owner of the Jets, is not going to dig out $800 million from his walking-around funds to create The House That Woody Built.

According to L. Jay Cross, the president of the Jets, the club would "borrow some money" and also arrange the normal $150 million new-stadium loan from the National Football League. Cross said that the Jets would also seek corporate partners and suite-holders, but that the club was "not convinced" about selling the naming rights.

The city and state would have to arrange financing for what could be another $700 million or more for a retractable roof, a deck over the railroad yards, air rights and other construction. Extension of existing rail lines could cost around $1.5 billion.

Meanwhile, time is ticking toward the International Olympic Committee's vote on July 6, 2005. Because of the Salt Lake City scandal, I.O.C. delegates are no longer allowed to make boondoggle visits or be swayed by tuition and frilly jobs for family members. Not that New Yorkers would have sunk as low as those tricky Utahans, mind you.

Since Dr. Jacques Rogge became president in 2002, the I.O.C. has insisted upon detailed guarantees of how each new Olympic stadium will be acquired. The shovels do not have to be in the ground on July 6, 2005 — but financing for the shovels must be demonstrated.

The Jets have their own deadline because their lease ends after the 2008 season.

"Giant Stadium is red and blue," Cross said. "It is clear who is in control there. This is a departure point."

The Jets want no part of returning to Shea Stadium or even a new stadium in Queens. It must be Manhattan, they say, to attract around 150 other events a year under the proposed roof.

Cross insists that the Jets are not depending on New York's winning the 2012 Summer Games. The optimistic Doctoroff, when pressed about a possible loss of the 2012 Games, conceded that "the entire West Side plan goes forward."

The NYC 2012 campaign is now led by Jay Kriegel, 63, a classic New York insider going back to his hitch as chief of staff for former Mayor John V. Lindsay in the late `60's. Kriegel has a double chore — financing the entire Olympic package and persuading I.O.C. delegates to vote for New York in 2005.

Will international politics work against New York? "Both Moscow and Los Angeles were awarded Games during the Cold War," noted Harvey Schiller, a former executive director of the U.S.O.C., now working in New York and active with the 2012 bid.

"Delegates could see New York as an Olympic island, not continentally based," suggested Richard Pound of Canada, an I.O.C. delegate and the president of the World Anti-Doping Agency. Pound added that the recent selection of Vancouver to hold the 2010 Winter Games could work against a North American city for 2012.

Then there is the recent chaos in the U.S.O.C., now being revamped under Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona. Some I.O.C. delegates are sure to recall how a weary Juan Antonio Samaranch, in his final days as president of the I.O.C., was pressured into testifying before Congress about the Salt Lake City scandal.

Pound called the bribes "tacky beyond description" but did not think they were worth prosecuting. For many I.O.C. members, getting caught and the subsequent American-style moralizing are sore points.

"If New York hopes to get the Games, we can't be ignoring or minimizing these international rules," D'Alessandro said.

The I.O.C. policy is that the Games must leave a legacy of facilities for the people of any host city. My opinion has long been that New York does not need to throw an expensive 17-day party for Olympic glory. It should not turn itself into a high-security television studio while schools, hospitals and the infrastructure are falling apart.

"What's the big deal in getting the Olympics in New York?" Zimbalist asked. "The city will go nuts, displacing all the people who would normally come here for the theater and the museums."

The odds are long against New York's holding the Games in 2012. The Jets are facing their own two-minute drill, with many yards to go.


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

ZippyTheChimp
December 9th, 2003, 09:36 AM
The Jets want no part of returning to Shea Stadium or even a new stadium in Queens. It must be Manhattan, they say, to attract around 150 other events a year under the proposed roof.
So will the Jets control the non-football events in the stadium? Will there be a split in revenue between the city and the Jets, and in what proportion? Will the convention center have to pay the Jets for use of space?

NYguy
December 10th, 2003, 07:44 PM
From newyorkgames.org, more information on the stadium and the exhibits at the Center for Architecture...

The Olympic/Jets stadium is depicted as ready-made for basketball in its arena configuration. This suggests NYC2012 is still hoping to move Madison Square Garden to the stadium to help its economic viability, and also to free up the MSG site for office development


http://www.newyorkgames.org/files/images/AIA/02c.JPG?


http://www.newyorkgames.org/files/images/AIA/02a.JPG


http://www.newyorkgames.org/files/images/AIA/02d.JPG


http://www.newyorkgames.org/files/images/AIA/02b.JPG


http://www.newyorkgames.org/files/images/AIA/03b.JPG


From this site you can see that 2 new towers would sit on the site of the current MSG

http://www.newyorkgames.org/files/images/AIA/00model1.JPG

NoyokA
December 10th, 2003, 07:59 PM
Those are some crisp renders'

I dont follow football, but I can see myself using that waterfront!

NYguy
December 10th, 2003, 08:12 PM
My head is spinning with all this talk of new stadiums, arenas, skyscrapers...NY is on one if its biggest building booms ever....somewhere the ghost of Robert Moses is smiling..(although he would like it better if a few more neighborhoods were being gutted)...

krulltime
December 10th, 2003, 10:33 PM
http://www.newyorkgames.org/files/images/AIA/00model1.JPG

Now if you look at this picture...in the near future there will be another business section in Manhattan...just like Downtown and Midtown.

What will this one be called? :roll:

I will call it 'The Westown' - I dont know maybe is a stupid and obvious name.

kliq6
December 10th, 2003, 11:13 PM
chance are the way the city is driving business outside of its borders most of this space will be residetial

TLOZ Link5
December 10th, 2003, 11:54 PM
chance are the way the city is driving business outside of its borders most of this space will be residetial

Sh*tty attitude :x

STT757
December 11th, 2003, 12:22 AM
My head is spinning with all this talk of new stadiums, arenas,

Nothing has happened yet, although the new West Side Jets stadium seems like a certain winner.

The Brooklyn arena for the Nets I give less than a 30% chance, all talk without even ownership of anything.

If you want to see new stadiums and arenas etc take a drive down to Philadelphia.

I like going to Philadelphia for Phillies games a few times a year, the amount of building going on there is amazing..

The Eagles (NFL) have a brand new stadium that opened this year, Lincoln Financial.

The FLyers and Sixers play in the Waichovia Arena which is brand new (2-3 years old)

The Phillies will play next season in a brand new Stadium,

And they even kept the old Spectrum for concerts.

krulltime
December 11th, 2003, 12:43 AM
Well...let me tell you something about Philadelphia. First of all these Stadiums are built with tax payers money...sure they are great and some how amazing stadiums but it is not helping the city at all or will on income. Sadly, it is a waste of money. (at one time they thought about putting the stadium in the city close to center city and it didn't got a good response from activists).

Now a stadium where restaurants, bars, stores, hotels, transportation and a convention center and other events will benefit like the Jets stadium will in Manhattan...thats what I call strategic thinking! :idea:

STT757
December 11th, 2003, 12:56 AM
Yeah they wanted to put the Phillies Stadium near Chinatown, they fought that hard.

It would have been nice if they could have worked it into Penn's Landing or something, within walking distance of South Street and Society Hill.

TLOZ Link5
December 11th, 2003, 01:11 AM
They have the same problem in Cincinnati. Over $300 million for a new stadium for one of the worst teams in the NFL, meanwhile the city continues in a downward spiral due to strained race relations, a corrupt police force and a skyrocketing crime rate. Of course, the new stadium (which involved the demolition of the old Cinergy Field/Riverfront Stadium) is meant to be the centerpiece of a huge riverfont redevelopment which I can only hope goes through.

billyblancoNYC
December 11th, 2003, 01:35 AM
chance are the way the city is driving business outside of its borders most of this space will be residetial

Almost 3/4 of the planned space is office, I think 28 mil sq ft. of office and 12 of residential.

Stop being so bitter. Things are changing, LIC and Brooklyn will develop and stem the loses to NJ. Give NYC time to make up for it's past mistakes.

NYguy
December 11th, 2003, 10:34 AM
My head is spinning with all this talk of new stadiums, arenas,

Nothing has happened yet, although the new West Side Jets stadium seems like a certain winner. The Brooklyn arena for the Nets I give less than a 30% chance, all talk without even ownership of anything.

If you want to see new stadiums and arenas etc take a drive down to Philadelphia. I like going to Philadelphia for Phillies games a few times a year, the amount of building going on there is amazing..

The Eagles (NFL) have a brand new stadium that opened this year, Lincoln Financial.

The FLyers and Sixers play in the Waichovia Arena which is brand new (2-3 years old)

The Phillies will play next season in a brand new Stadium, And they even kept the old Spectrum for concerts.


That's all well and good, but um, its NOT IN NEW YORK! We're talking skyscrapers, stadiums and arenas in NY (its the wired new york forum).

Its even more exciting because we're talking about the return of 2 NY teams to NY. Of course nothing has happened yet, but its a process we can talk about.

kliq6
December 11th, 2003, 10:34 AM
Billy believe me id like to but if your firm moved you from Manhattan to the Newark youd be mad to

NYatKNIGHT
December 11th, 2003, 01:25 PM
.....one of the reasons the project is so absurdly expensive is because it calls for yet another (!) automobile tunnel for the portion of West Street adjacent to the new stadium. It seems that the politically connected construction interests behind the rightfully-defeated Westway project are determined to reconstruct that project one link at a time.
It's not a tunnel, it's a deck.

http://www.newyorkgames.org/files/images/AIA/02a.JPG

billyblancoNYC
December 11th, 2003, 03:11 PM
And even if it is a tunnel, the entire West Side highway and FDR should be submerged, so the land could be used to better use... residences, parks, etc. Land in Manhattan is too valuable and desirable to have highways taking up space.

People need to look at the big picture and spend money again, to improve the city for the long haul.

TonyO
December 11th, 2003, 03:53 PM
And even if it is a tunnel, the entire West Side highway and FDR should be submerged, so the land could be used to better use... residences, parks, etc. Land in Manhattan is too valuable and desirable to have highways taking up space.

People need to look at the big picture and spend money again, to improve the city for the long haul.

A big dig for NYC? Not in this lifetime....but an interesting idea.

NoyokA
December 11th, 2003, 05:02 PM
My head is spinning with all this talk of new stadiums, arenas, skyscrapers...NY is on one if its biggest building booms ever....somewhere the ghost of Robert Moses is smiling..(although he would like it better if a few more neighborhoods were being gutted)...

I agree; whereas most cities are doing nothing, New York City is doing everything!

emmeka
December 11th, 2003, 05:05 PM
Yeah! rock on NYC!

BTW: LA, and san francisco arent doing hardly anything at the moment. I think its sad when that happens, because it makes them seem less sucessful.

NoyokA
December 11th, 2003, 05:14 PM
La is a great city too.

But New York City is the City of the year as far as development goes.

STT757
December 11th, 2003, 08:00 PM
NYguy

Pointing that out was uneccesary, I was contrasting Philly's "all" new stadiums and arenas.

vs..

NY's, the newest of which would be the Continental Airlines Arena.

NYguy
December 11th, 2003, 08:24 PM
NYguy

Pointing that out was uneccesary, I was contrasting Philly's "all" new stadiums and arenas.

vs..

NY's, the newest of which would be the Continental Airlines Arena.

No problem. Sounded like you were attacking the enthusiasm for NY's stadium/arena construction (if it happens)....

NYguy
December 11th, 2003, 08:27 PM
La is a great city too.

But New York City is the City of the year as far as development goes.

Yeah, if there was such an award, NY would get it. In fact, it would probably sweep in all categories... :D

BPC
December 12th, 2003, 08:50 PM
And even if it is a tunnel, the entire West Side highway and FDR should be submerged, so the land could be used to better use... residences, parks, etc. Land in Manhattan is too valuable and desirable to have highways taking up space.

People need to look at the big picture and spend money again, to improve the city for the long haul.

A big dig for NYC? Not in this lifetime....but an interesting idea.


An interesting idea? More like an absurd idea, based on long-rejected urban planning concepts. Robert Moses is dead. WestWay is dead. NYC will never have a Big Dig, and thank God for that.

ZippyTheChimp
December 12th, 2003, 09:01 PM
An interesting idea? More like an absurd idea, based on long-rejected urban planning concepts. Robert Moses is dead. WestWay is dead. NYC will never have a Big Dig, and thank God for that.
Never say never. (http://www.rpa.org/publications/gowanus-intro.html)

billyblancoNYC
December 13th, 2003, 03:14 AM
And even if it is a tunnel, the entire West Side highway and FDR should be submerged, so the land could be used to better use... residences, parks, etc. Land in Manhattan is too valuable and desirable to have highways taking up space.

People need to look at the big picture and spend money again, to improve the city for the long haul.

A big dig for NYC? Not in this lifetime....but an interesting idea.


An interesting idea? More like an absurd idea, based on long-rejected urban planning concepts. Robert Moses is dead. WestWay is dead. NYC will never have a Big Dig, and thank God for that.

I'm sure there were some people that thought Battery park City was an insane idea that would ruin the fabric of the area, too. Something to keep in mind.

BPC
December 13th, 2003, 10:12 PM
http://www.newyorkgames.org/files/images/AIA/00model1.JPG

Now if you look at this picture...in the near future there will be another business section in Manhattan...just like Downtown and Midtown.

What will this one be called? :roll:

I will call it 'The Westown' - I dont know maybe is a stupid and obvious name.

How about Fantasia?

emmeka
December 14th, 2003, 07:47 AM
Any news on the skyscrapers in the project? what about that big crystal-shaped one that looks to be about 80 stories?

kliq6
December 16th, 2003, 05:12 PM
heard the Jets want answer from city and state by the 15th of January

Kris
December 21st, 2003, 11:46 PM
December 22, 2003

OP-ED COLUMNIST

They'll Take Manhattan

By BOB HERBERT

Let's see. The city and the state of New York do not have enough money to adequately fund the public schools. Kids frequently find that gymnasiums, science labs, art classes, playgrounds and even qualified teachers are in short supply.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority, a state agency that runs the mass transit system, has already imposed the biggest fare hike in history, is in the process of cutting portions of its work force and may have to raise fares again in 2005 because of budget problems.

Students at the state and city university systems are facing the double-whammy of budget cuts and substantial tuition increases.

It's a sad story. Despite an array of tax and fee increases, the city and the state are essentially broke. There's no money for anything except the bare essentials.

Unless — and this is hard to believe — unless the needy group is the New York Jets, the thriving National Football League franchise owned by Robert Wood Johnson IV, the fabulously wealthy heir to the Johnson & Johnson fortune. Like Mayor Michael Bloomberg, "Woody" Johnson is a billionaire. He paid $635 million for the Jets in 2000.

Now he wants a new stadium. The Jets are tired of playing at Giants Stadium in the New Jersey Meadowlands. Mr. Johnson would like to enhance the value of his franchise by adding a glittering new waterfront playground, air-conditioned and with a retractable roof, on some of the most valuable real estate in Manhattan.

He would like the state, which owns the huge expanse of West Side property that he covets, to give it up for use by the Jets. And he would like the city and the state to contribute hundreds of millions of dollars toward the cost of the stadium, which is estimated at $1.5 billion, and could go quite a bit higher.

Apparently moved by the plight of a billionaire with an unfulfilled want, Mayor Bloomberg and Governor George Pataki (who hung out together recently at the mayor's spread in Bermuda) are all for this project. They'd like to get it started as quickly as possible.

I'd like to ask a question. Has anyone stopped to consider that this idea is completely insane?

This behemoth of a stadium would rise on a platform to be built over the Long Island Rail Road yards just south of 34th Street. The Jets and the N.F.L. plan to put up $800 million. The city and the state are supposed to put up $300 million to $400 million each to pay for construction of the platform, the retractable roof and air-conditioning. That is just the beginning of the public cost, and no one knows — or at least no one is saying — where the money would come from.

How in the world does it make sense to move forward on such an enormous capital expense project (which is supposed to be part of a multibillion-dollar West Side redevelopment plan) if the city and state are broke and the questions about financing can't be answered?

Just last week the mayor urged administration officials to continue hunting for new ways to cut spending.

For the city to hold up its end of the stadium proposal it would have to draw money from sources outside "the normal city debt stream," said William Thompson, the city comptroller. Otherwise, he said, "the choices start to become schools or stadiums."

Assume this behemoth is built. (It's a potentially gorgeous behemoth, but a behemoth nevertheless.) There are no plans for additional parking. Have you ever tried to park in Manhattan? Now imagine a filled-to-capacity 75,000-seat stadium in the neighborhood — with no additional parking facilities.

(Maybe the city can make a killing towing the illegally parked cars.)

This is a pie-in-the-sky proposal built on fantasies that it will generate fabulous amounts of money, enough money to cover the enormous public expenditures (including a $2 billion extension of the No. 7 subway line) and bring a handsome return besides.

The value of the Jets could skyrocket. But I have no doubt that the cost to the public will be far greater than the estimates being tossed around now, and that the returns will be far less.

Why we would consider handing over an enormous section of Manhattan to the Jets — which happens to be my favorite sports team — is beyond me. Let Woody Johnson make his big score somewhere else, without hundreds of millions of our dollars.

There are sensible proposals for the development of the West Side. This is not one of them.


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

TonyO
December 22nd, 2003, 11:25 AM
This needs to be put in context. With all the other stadiums that have been built or are going to be built in the US, this is one of the most generous to the taxpayers. Most cities take it on the chin in their efforts to satiate their teams and prevent them from leaving. Some get stadiums outside the downtown core and thus lose countless business to people who go towards home instead of going out in the city post-event. On top of it all is the Olympic bid - NYC should not ask for the games if it has to ferry people to New Jersey for events.

OKoranjes
December 22nd, 2003, 01:10 PM
I personally like the new stadium. It has a lot of goodness to it. Agreements?

NoyokA
December 22nd, 2003, 02:41 PM
The new Jets stadium falls under the category "Big and Green" and is under exhibition at the Museum of the City of New York.

http://www.mcny.org/Exhibitions/BigGreen/Bigngreen.htm

Kris
January 13th, 2004, 11:43 PM
http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/01/14/arts/olym.1.583.jpg

bayrider
January 14th, 2004, 03:04 AM
that truly is a beautiful stadium.. sure as hell beats the hell out of any of the dull/bland new ones

ZippyTheChimp
January 14th, 2004, 10:17 AM
Actually, I think the design is conservative. Check these from another thread.

Beijing Olympic Stadium (http://www.pbase.com/image/24373368.jpg)
Bold Stadium designs (http://forums.wirednewyork.com/viewtopic.php?t=1395)

BrooklynRider
January 14th, 2004, 10:20 AM
I think the columnist, Bob Herbert, is way off the mark. I like the design. The area is barren, ugly and underutilized. I am all for moving this forward quickly.

billyblancoNYC
January 14th, 2004, 12:33 PM
I think Beijing and the AZ stadium are pretty ugly. Innovative, perhaps, but ugly.

This design is modern and clean, that will add to the waterfront and not totally take away from it. It also evokes the industrial nature of the area. I think it's great for the area and the city.

ZippyTheChimp
January 14th, 2004, 01:05 PM
This design is modern and clean.
So is my bathroom. :D

NYguy
January 14th, 2004, 05:50 PM
The area is barren, ugly and underutilized. I am all for moving this forward quickly.

Exactly. That's what amazes me about the people who are against the stadiums here and in Brooklyn. They would prefer that the "beautiful" rail yards to anything that would resemble human life invading their neighborhoods...

finnman69
January 14th, 2004, 06:09 PM
I think Beijing and the AZ stadium are pretty ugly. Innovative, perhaps, but ugly.

This design is modern and clean, that will add to the waterfront and not totally take away from it. It also evokes the industrial nature of the area. I think it's great for the area and the city.


Agreed, KPF's design is very cool and modern, perfect for NYC. I find Eisenman's stadium to be very ugly.

DominicanoNYC
January 15th, 2004, 09:11 PM
Are those twirling things at the top of the stadium windmills? If they are this is the perfect stadium for NYC.

Gulcrapek
January 15th, 2004, 09:17 PM
Ya...

NYguy
January 17th, 2004, 10:33 AM
DAILY NEWS...

Jets to land on W. Side
Stadium plan set for 2012 Olympics bid

By MICHAEL SAUL

The Jets are coming to Manhattan.

A new stadium will be built on the far West Side of Manhattan for the New York Jets and in anticipation of the Summer Olympic Games coming to New York City in 2012, Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff said yesterday.

Doctoroff said an official announcement between the Jets and city and state officials is imminent.

The $800 million Olympic Stadium will be built by the Jets; the city and state will pay a combined $600 million for a "platform on which [the stadium] sits and the retractable roof, which will make it possible to use it for conventions and exhibitions and trade shows," Doctoroff said.

Doctoroff made his comments as the city released a 65-page document detailing the city's bid. The document is the city's first major submission to the International Olympic Committee, which will select the 2012 host city during its July 2005 meeting in Singapore.

New York is competing against eight other cities: Havana, Istanbul, Leipzig, Germany, London, Madrid, Moscow, Paris and Rio de Janeiro.

"It's a city, like the Olympics, that's built on dreams," Doctoroff said of New York. "It's a city, like the Olympics, that is built on the notion of fair competition."

Doctoroff, founder of the city's Olympic bid, said he is confident New York will prevail despite anti-U.S. sentiment that has grown since the war with Iraq.

"The world changes dramatically in 18 months and what the perception of the United States will be then is very difficult to predict," he said.

"They're not voting on America," he added.

"They're voting on New York City."

The document included a letter from President Bush that pledges the federal government's strong support for the city's bid.

John Fisher, who heads the Clinton Special District Coalition, which is opposed to the new West Side stadium, said taxpayers don't realize that they are going to get hit with a huge tax bill.

"It's all smoke and mirrors," Fisher said.

"People have to understand it's their tax dollars."

TLOZ Link5
January 17th, 2004, 01:31 PM
Is there nothing John Fisher isn't opposed to?

krulltime
January 17th, 2004, 01:40 PM
Is there nothing John Fisher isn't opposed to?

Nothing.

That is what is in the Clinton area for the most part...Nothing.

But it seems he is loosing the game.

TLOZ Link5
January 17th, 2004, 03:14 PM
There's only one "o" in "losing" :P

krulltime
January 17th, 2004, 08:32 PM
'o''o'ps! 'o'h! my mistake... :(

NYguy
January 21st, 2004, 10:28 AM
NEWSDAY...

LDMC Chief Quits To Join Stadium Effort

By Errol A. Cockfield, Jr.
January 21, 2004

Matthew Higgins, chief operating officer for the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, said yesterday that he was leaving the agency to join the New York Jets, where he will assist the football team in building a proposed stadium and convention center on Manhattan's West Side.

Higgins will serve as vice president for strategic planning, helping to market and clear approval hurdles for the project, though city, state and Jets officials still have not said how they will finance it. The Jets now play in Giants Stadium in East Rutherford, N.J.

Jets' President Jay Cross said his team will benefit from the involvement of Higgins, who has strong state and local political ties and experience shepherding New York through one of its most high-profile redevelopment projects.

"Clearly his experience at LMDC has been excellent training for the task at hand," Cross said.

Higgins, a 29-year-old who lives in Lower Manhattan, has had a notable rise, transforming himself from a reporter for a weekly Queens community newspaper to a person sought after in government and planning circles.

A former director of corporate communications for Kozmo.com and an assistant editor for the Queens Tribune, Higgins, who has a law degree from Fordham University, later served as press secretary to then-New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani before he joined the LMDC in February 2002. At the LMDC, Higgins rose from communications director to the $160,000-a-year post of chief operating officer in May 2003.

Higgins, who will leave the LMDC on Feb. 6, said the Jets approached him several months ago. He was attracted to the job, he said, because it will allow him to continue to work on urban planning that affects the city.

"It's important to get the message out that this is a sports and convention center, not just a stadium to host Jets games," he said, already pitching the proposal's economic angles.

There has been concern that the stadium, which is part of the city's bid to host the 2012 Olympics, could rely too heavily on public money. But supporters say the project will proceed and prove an economic boon even if New York is not selected to host the Olympics. Backers of the plan say that in addition to football, the stadium could be used for national and local competitions, large events, conventions, and trade shows.

The stadium, proposed for Hudson Yards, is part of a $5 billion project that would also extend the No.7 subway line and expand the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center. The stadium alone would require $600 million of city and state money to construct a platform and retractable roof, and $800 million of Jets money to build the stadium itself.

On Friday, Daniel L. Doctoroff, deputy mayor for economic development, said the city had not released a financing plan for the stadium because engineers were still working on the project's design specifications. But Doctoroff noted that the size of the project is unlike any public-private project the city has seen in its history. "It will be the largest single investment in a comparable facility ever," he said.

DougGold
January 21st, 2004, 06:30 PM
I reeeeeeeeally hope there's some kind of mass-transit announcement to go with the stadium announcement. Huge ferries to take people to parking lots across the Hudson maybe? There's gotta be some explanation of what's going to happen to those tens of thousands of people when the game lets out.

ASchwarz
January 21st, 2004, 09:50 PM
DougGold, the thread has numerous references to the 7 Train Extension to the Hudson River, as well as commuter rail and ferry service directly to the site.

Subway design is already underway, and groundbreaking might be next year. The commuter rail station has no timetable, but the rail lines run directly under the site. The new ferry terminal is almost completed.

Is there an open site anywhere with better transit access?

billyblancoNYC
January 22nd, 2004, 01:02 AM
Other than the new home for the Brooklyn Nets???

Kris
January 26th, 2004, 01:50 AM
January 26, 2004

A Stadium Too Far

Few would argue that the last remaining expanse of undeveloped space in Manhattan should remain a hodgepodge of sparsely inhabited and underused buildings, parking lots and rail yards west of Midtown. So it was welcome news when, early in his administration, Mayor Michael Bloomberg called for dramatic changes to the area commonly known as Hudson Yards. Central to the plan was a stadium that would be home to the New York Jets, additional space for the Javits Convention Center and a setting for the 2012 Olympics, if the Games were awarded to the city. The stadium is being presented as an anchor, but as the plan and its financing have evolved, it is starting to look more like an expensive albatross.

There are good reasons to press ahead with other parts of the plan, starting with an extension of the No. 7 subway line and the creation of parks, which would finally make the area an accessible and desirable place to live or work. An expansion of the Javits Center is needed, but that seems better accomplished by extending the center, not by adding the looming space of an adjacent stadium. It's doubtful that a stadium would attract the kind of regular convention business the city desires. The Jets usually play eight home games a season, leaving a lot of down time to fill.

The Jets need a new home — their lease to share the New Jersey Meadowlands stadium with the Giants is running out — and the owners want to return to New York. But that desirable goal does not by itself justify the cost or the compressed timetable of the current plan, which would tie up too many public resources at a time when there are precious few. While the Jets would pay up to $800 million to build the stadium itself, public money would be needed to place a platform over the rail yards, as well as to install the air-conditioning and retractable roof needed for convention business. The public tab would be at least $600 million, and the overall cost more than twice that of other recently erected football stadiums.

The rush to a decision on a stadium is being driven in part by New York's quest to be the host for the 2012 summer Games. One of the best arguments for seeking the Olympics was the impetus it would give the city to push forward on needed projects like parks and subway expansion. But that does not mean it makes sense to build an expensive and possibly unnecessary stadium just to keep the Olympic bid alive. One option would be to refurbish Shea Stadium and move the Olympic dream there. The No. 7 extension should be built as soon as possible, but with maximum aid from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and federal government. The hurried pace the Bloomberg administration is contemplating could leave the city to go it alone, absorbing an expense estimated to be at least $1.6 billion.

To recover its investment, the city may feel the need to fill the area with overly tall, overly dense office buildings. Taxpayers could find themselves footing the ultimate bill if occupancy falls short of expectations in the development, which would compete for tenants with planned developments in Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn.

The Jets are keen on being in Manhattan and on the Hudson. It keeps them within easy reach of New Jersey fans. More, it would be the prime home turf in the business, perfect for building the highest-priced luxury boxes in the National Football League. The team should get a stadium to call its own, but building it elsewhere — perhaps in Queens — would save hundreds of millions of public dollars while also providing a desirable Olympics venue. The current price tag for placing America's most exclusive 50-yard line in Manhattan is too high.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

NYatKNIGHT
January 26th, 2004, 12:28 PM
I agree that an argument can be made that the stadium is too much money, or that the Jets can play at Shea, but making the case that an Olympic Stadium in Queens is desirable, or even adequate, is the weakest argument against a West Side stadium.

The "dream" isn't a refurbished Shea Stadium, it is having the Olympic Stadium in spectacular Manhattan, among the skyscrapers and famous landmarks, close to the New York that the world wants to experience. It surely will be a major factor as to whether New York is even awarded the Olympics. The competition is tough, and if NY wants the Olympics it will have to make its best presentation - blimps and skylights over Manhattan, not Flushing. Talk about a stadium "too far".


To recover its investment, the city may feel the need to fill the area with overly tall, overly dense office buildings.

What would be so bad about a dense neighborhood with tall buildings? Define "overly" tall in Manhattan. This editorial sounds like it was written by a NIMBY grasping at straws, so I don't see any of these arguments as being credible. If NYC does get the Olympics, the $12B in estimated revenues, not to mention future major events and conventions, would more than pay for the $600 million "albatross".

NYguy
January 27th, 2004, 09:40 AM
DAILY NEWS...


Conventions should be flocking here

By WILLIAM C. RUDIN

Question: Where is Rosemont, Ill.? Answer: Just behind Louisville, Ky., on a list of U.S. cities with the largest convention facilities - and just ahead of New York City.

Ahead of New York City? How can this be?

Well, our major convention hub, the Jacob Javits Convention Center, generates nearly $1billion annually in hotel, restaurant, entertainment and retail business for New York. But our city could bring in a far bigger share of national conventions and trade shows if it were more competitive with other cities.

I believe New York belongs at the top of the convention facilities list. The good news is: We can get there in one bold step. With the expansion of the Javits Center and the creation of the proposed New York Sports and Convention Center, New York can be second to none.

When built, the new Hudson Yards would be a spectacular new community on the far West Side. A new subway station at 34th St. and 11th Ave. would bring the No. 7 train to the area. Rezoning would allow New Yorkers to work and reside in the neighborhood, which would feature ferry service, easy access to the new Penn Station and 20 acres of lush new parkland. It would create more than 100,000 temporary and permanent jobs in construction, hospitality, tourism, finance, media and many other industries.

The Hudson Yards plan calls for the expansion of the Javits Center to 42nd St. and building the sports center to the south of Javits. The center would serve as the new home of the New York Jets, but would also make the Javits Center more attractive as a convention facility.

The center would attract a wide range of marquee events that currently don't have the option of coming to New York City - events such as the Super Bowl, college football games and the NCAA Final Four Tournament.

How much would this bring in? Estimates say more than $80million in new annual revenue for our hotels, restaurants, cultural facilities and retail shops.

Central Park, Rockefeller Center, the United Nations, Lincoln Center and the World Trade Center were, each in its time, mere ideas on someone's drawing board. But they became engines for revitalization and economic growth for the entire city.

Today, we have an equivalent opportunity in Hudson Yards and shouldn't let the clock run out before we post a huge New York win.

Kris
January 28th, 2004, 01:57 AM
January 28, 2004

To Avoid Competing With Garden, Jets Redraw Plans for Stadium on West Side

By CHARLES V. BAGLI

At the urging of state and city officials, the Jets have redrawn their plans for a $1.5 billion football stadium on the West Side of Manhattan so that it will not compete for events with Madison Square Garden.

The Jets had designed a 75,000-seat stadium with a retractable roof that could be converted into a combination exhibition hall and arena, for which the team hoped to book conventions, ice shows, circuses and other sporting events. The stadium itself would face the Hudson River and sit on a platform over the West Side rail yards, between 11th and 12th Avenues, from 30th Street to 34th Street.

The Garden's complaints emerged as the developer Bruce C. Ratner signed a contract to buy the Nets for $300 million and move them to a proposed $485 million arena in downtown Brooklyn.

But the Dolan family, which controls Cablevision, the publicly traded company that owns Madison Square Garden, the Knicks and the Rangers, expressed its misgivings about the Jets project in a meeting with Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg this month and with the Pataki administration, according to state and city officials. They feared that the Jets would be chasing the same kind of events as the Garden, effectively cannibalizing the market.

The Jets, in turn, have reconfigured the stadium, eliminating plans for an arena and re-emphasizing its connections to the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center by providing even more space for conventions. Jets executives say that under the new arrangement the stadium could provide 200,000 square feet of exhibit and meeting space, up from 110,000 square feet under the previous version.

"There's been a lot of cooperation between the state, the city and the Jets about the stadium," said Charles A. Gargano, chairman of the Empire State Development Corporation and the Convention Center Development Corporation. "This will alleviate the Garden's fears - and keep the stadium available for as many dates as possible for Javits Convention Center use."

L. Jay Cross, president of the Jets, said that the team had been moving away from the arena concept as it learned more about the convention business. Eliminating the arena, he said, saves money and allows them to enlarge the exhibition space, allowing them to book more shows.

"If our neighbors are happier too, it's a bonus," Mr. Cross said. "We've come to believe more fully in the building as a convention center. The sweet spot for convention business is about 200,000 square feet, the median size of a trade show."

Cablevision, which has not taken a public position on the proposed stadium, declined to comment on the latest development. But the company is continuing to review the project. Still, according to government officials and real estate executives, the Garden is talking to Brookfield Financial Properties about building a new garden on Ninth Avenue and 31st Street and with Related Companies about a nearby site, at the back of the James A. Farley Post Office.

The reconfiguration is only the latest attempt by the Jets and state and city officials to appease potential opponents of the stadium, which would require at least $600 million in public funds.

The hotel industry, for one, has long wanted to expand the Javits Convention Center, which runs between 34th and 38th Streets to 42nd Street in order to attract larger, more lucrative conventions and fill hotel rooms and restaurants. They feared that doubling the size of the Javits to roughly 1.34 million square feet would lose out to the city's push for the stadium, which also figures in New York's bid for the 2012 Summer Olympics. Some industry executives also doubted that the stadium would be used much as a convention hall.

Hoteliers became alarmed weeks ago when city and state officials proposed a smaller, or two-phased, convention expansion that would go only up to 40th Street. To try to mollify the hotel industry, the Jets and city officials had talked about building a convention hotel and ballroom at 34th Street. That has been scrapped.

State and city officials now say that the current proposal for Javits expansion, nicknamed Javits Lite, would provide a total of 1.1 million square feet, with another 200,000 square feet at the stadium.

There are still some concerns about using the stadium as a convention hall. State and city officials are proposing to raise the city hotel tax by $2 per night per bed to pay for the expansion. The hotel industry favors a mechanism that would include a tax on restaurants and taxis.

"It may not be the perfect solution today, but it's definitely a partial solution" said Jonathan Tisch, chairman of NYC & Company, the city's convention and visitors bureau, and chief executive of Loews Hotels. "It gets us closer to where we need to be as a competitive convention city."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

NYguy
January 28th, 2004, 10:20 AM
Still, according to government officials and real estate executives, the Garden is talking to Brookfield Financial Properties about building a new garden on Ninth Avenue and 31st Street and with Related Companies about a nearby site, at the back of the James A. Farley Post Office.

I find that the most interesting bit of information from the article. There has been talk of a new (the 5th) MSG for a while. With the NETS likely getting a new arena built, it seemed certain that the push for a new MSG would begin again...

NYguy
January 28th, 2004, 10:38 AM
NY Observer...
http://nyobserver.com/pages/frontpage1.asp

(quotes from the article)

The Jets would own and manage the stadium as a convention center, meaning that they would be responsible for booking the space themselves. It’s unclear at this point, however, how the team would split the revenue it makes on those events with the Javits Center. Officials on both sides say they are currently working out the details

It was the Jets who originally came up with the idea of constructing a stadium-arena hybrid. Under that plan, the stadium would have offered about 130,000 square feet of space for convention-show purposes. Without the arena component, it now offers about 180,000 square feet.

The Jets’ agreement with the state gave succor to Mr. Dolan, whose Cablevision empire includes controlling ownership of the Knicks, the Rangers and three million cable subscribers, in addition to Madison Square Garden; but the West Side stadium is not Mr. Dolan’s only worry. While, on the one hand, Mr. Dolan was fending off encroachment by the Jets to the west, he was simultaneously keeping a wary eye on his eastern flank, where developer Bruce Ratner was charging ahead with his plans to buy the New Jersey Nets and move them to a new Frank Gehry–designed arena in Brooklyn.

To guard against that possibility, Mr. Dolan’s son, James, Cablevision’s chief executive, has reportedly been lobbying the N.B.A. furiously against the proposal. According to a report in The New Jersey Star-Ledger, it was Mr. Kushner who enlisted Mr. Dolan’s help in the lobbying effort, but a spokesman for Mr. Kushner called the report "patently false." Through a spokesperson, the Dolan family declined to comment on any aspect of this story.

billyblancoNYC
January 29th, 2004, 12:26 AM
I like the new Garden, I suppose it makes sense that the Jets don't compete and more for the Javits is good, too.

But, is that 1.1mm sq. ft TOTAL after the expansion, or is that the size of the expansion. At 1.1mm, wouldn't that still be less than half of Chicago's?

billyblancoNYC
January 29th, 2004, 12:40 AM
Ugh...it's TO 1.1mi. sq. ft. That's just dumb. Vegas is 2mm. Why would they not go there, then?

Also, there will be no concerts, etc. now? That's dumb, too. That was a great benefit, to have the major events come to NYC instead of NJ and LI.

I dunno... upsetting.

Kris
January 29th, 2004, 04:50 AM
January 29, 2004

West Side Stadium Story: Good for New York? (3 Letters)

To the Editor:

Re "A Stadium Too Far" (editorial, Jan. 26):

The Hudson Yards plan envisioned for the West Side of Manhattan is the single best financial investment that New York City can make in its future.

The bold plan would expand the Javits Convention Center; rezone the area to encourage development; expand the No. 7 subway line to provide access; and create 20 new acres of open space.

The area will generate almost $2 billion in additional taxes each year by 2025 and more than 70,000 jobs.

We cannot afford to develop these types of projects without significant private investment, and thus cannot ignore the New York Jets' willingness to invest $800 million in this project.

Yes, the public sector will finance the decking over of the rail yards and the roof, but we must make this investment to allow for an exponentially greater number of convention uses.

The economic impact of these events will more than cover the cost of the original investment.

Redeveloping the Hudson Yards will secure our future; we must have the foresight to invest in it.

DANIEL L. DOCTOROFF
Deputy Mayor for Economic Development and Rebuilding
New York, Jan. 27, 2004



To the Editor:

Re "A Stadium Too Far" (editorial, Jan. 26):

I vehemently object to the construction of a West Side stadium.

As a 30-year resident of the theater district, I feel that the congestion and rudeness already thrust upon residents would only increase, making the neighborhood unlivable.

If Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is really concerned with quality-of-life and noise issues, as he has led us all to believe, then he should reconsider this plan. The issue is obvious and needs no further explanation.

L. MCGUIRE
New York, Jan. 27, 2004



To the Editor:

"A Stadium Too Far" (editorial, Jan. 26) hit the nail on the head. It was time that New York City's misguided, expensive plan for the West Side of Manhattan was critically examined by the news media.

Manhattan Community Board 4 shares many of your concerns, including the wasteful expenditure of tax funds.

A stadium is the wrong economic development tool for Manhattan's West Side and a waste of a prime development site.

The rail yards should be used for new high-density office and/or residential buildings, hotels, community uses, public open space and a southward expansion of the Javits Convention Center. Mass transit could be provided by a subway spur running west to 11th Avenue from the regional transportation hub at Penn Station. The spur could be linked to an extension of the No. 7 subway line as future development allows.

WALTER MANKOFF
Chairman, Community Board 4
New York, Jan. 26, 2004

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

NYguy
January 29th, 2004, 10:53 AM
Ugh...it's TO 1.1mi. sq. ft. That's just dumb. Vegas is 2mm. Why would they not go there, then?

Also, there will be no concerts, etc. now? That's dumb, too. That was a great benefit, to have the major events come to NYC instead of NJ and LI.
I dunno... upsetting.

The concerts that would be held at an arena at the stadium are the ones tht would be held at the Garden...

NYguy
January 29th, 2004, 10:55 AM
To the Editor:

Re "A Stadium Too Far" (editorial, Jan. 26):

I vehemently object to the construction of a West Side stadium.

As a 30-year resident of the theater district, I feel that the congestion and rudeness already thrust upon residents would only increase, making the neighborhood unlivable.

If Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is really concerned with quality-of-life and noise issues, as he has led us all to believe, then he should reconsider this plan. The issue is obvious and needs no further explanation.

L. MCGUIRE
New York, Jan. 27, 2004

Rudeness? Congestion? In New York?

ZippyTheChimp
January 29th, 2004, 11:03 AM
I think it's the same ruffians that invade BPC. :roll:

billyblancoNYC
January 29th, 2004, 11:55 AM
Ugh...it's TO 1.1mi. sq. ft. That's just dumb. Vegas is 2mm. Why would they not go there, then?

Also, there will be no concerts, etc. now? That's dumb, too. That was a great benefit, to have the major events come to NYC instead of NJ and LI.
I dunno... upsetting.

The concerts that would be held at an arena at the stadium are the ones tht would be held at the Garden...

True, but I meant the stadium, not arena, mega concerts. The Rolling Stones of the world. These always go to NJ and LI now.

That's the reason, also, that an outdoor amphitheater should be done already...one planned for Randall's Island that's way overdue and one for CI. This would draw concerts that always go the Jones Beach and PNC in Jersey.

NYC needs to make things available so that people don't have to go the burbs when you know they'd rather be at the big show.

Kris
February 9th, 2004, 02:41 AM
February 9, 2004

Some New York Business and Civic Leaders Voice Doubt on West Side Stadium Plans

By CHARLES V. BAGLI

With Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Gov. George E. Pataki poised to announce plans to build a stadium and a convention center on the far West Side of Manhattan, there is a growing unease in business and civic circles about the wisdom of the plan to erect a $1.5 billion domed football stadium that would also serve as the centerpiece of the city's bid for the 2012 Olympics.

The hotel and tourism industry, the real estate lobby, the city's convention and visitors bureau and the chamber of commerce have all endorsed the city's effort to establish new zoning and tax incentives intended to turn the West Side into a major commercial and residential district.

They also support the city's bid to serve as host for the Summer Olympic Games in 2012 and for the $1.5 billion expansion of the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center.

Privately, though, some members of these groups are questioning the city's and the state's decision to invest more than $600 million in public money in a 75,000-seat Jets football stadium that faces neighborhood opposition and an almost inevitable lawsuit. Some say the stadium would do little for the city's economy other than enrich team owners, while others worry that the opposition will slow - or even halt - other elements of the project.

Few are willing to speak publicly for fear of alienating Mr. Bloomberg or Deputy Mayor Daniel L. Doctoroff, the architect of the city's 2012 Olympic bid. "Everybody has to go to Doctoroff to get things approved," said one developer. "How can we say anything?"

Among those who questioned spending so much public money on the sports complex was a leading figure in the city's real estate industry. "What does a stadium do for us in Manhattan?" he said. "Queens is a logical place to put it."

A civic leader and retired businessman said: "There are enormous infrastructure needs in the city today. In a world of limited resources, one has to question subsidizing a stadium."

While acknowledging that some members of her group have misgivings, Kathryn Wylde, the president of the New York City Partnership, one of the city's leading business and civic organizations, said their concerns were limited.

"We've enthusiastically endorsed the Olympics and the West Side plan," Ms. Wylde said. "The confusion is that most business people worry about a stadium on the West Side in that it raises political issues that could result in litigation that would derail the effort."

Broadway theater owners have raised broader questions about the stadium's effect on traffic congestion and pollution in the area. Many hotel owners and executives in the tourism industry are strongly behind expansion of the Javits Convention Center, which they say will increase business at hotels and restaurants, but care little about the fate of the stadium. "You're talking about redeveloping a 50-block area," said a tourism executive who was an initial supporter of the stadium. "It shouldn't be driven by the need for an Olympic stadium."

Some downtown landlords and business leaders fear that the West Side project will absorb resources needed to rebuild Lower Manhattan, and Cablevision, the company that owns Madison Square Garden, the Knicks and the Rangers, is worried that the stadium may compete with it for ice skating shows, circuses, concerts and other events.

Some people also worry that the plan to subsidize a stadium for the Jets has set off a chain reaction. Mayor Bloomberg has endorsed a $485 million arena for the Nets. The Yankees and the Mets each have plans to build $800 million stadiums, and Madison Square Garden executives have indicated that they would like a new building that at least one developer said could cost $600 million.

The outcome could be a huge public investment in professional sports facilities that account for only a tiny fraction of the city's economy. According to a study by the city comptroller in 1996, professional sports events account for about 0.7 percent of the city's annual gross economic product.

"People have raised some questions about the stadium," said Steven Spinola, president of the Real Estate Board of New York. "But clearly, it's part of the city's effort to redevelop the area and get the Olympics. My personal opinion is that a stadium would be great."

Some groups are pushing for a public discussion of the policy issues. The Regional Plan Association has scheduled a forum about the city's plans for the West Side, and a similar forum is being jointly held by the Women's City Club, the Municipal Art Society and the New York chapter of the American Planning Association.

Regardless of whether the city is selected as the site of the Summer Games, Mr. Doctoroff contends, the city should move ahead with the stadium, the $1.67 billion extension of the No. 7 subway line, the Javits center expansion and rezoning for 28 million square feet of office towers as a way of improving New York's economic health. In a city where it is often difficult to accomplish big projects, he said, the Olympic bid would impose much-needed discipline and deadlines

But even some proponents of the West Side effort describe the stadium as the redevelopment plan's "Achilles heel." It has inspired local community opposition, and most economists say that stadiums are relatively poor public investments. To offset those objections, the Jets and Mr. Doctoroff said that the public would also benefit from as much as 200,000 square feet of exhibition and meeting space that would be part of the sports complex and physically linked to the convention center. (Mr. Doctoroff has also banned the word "stadium" to describe the complex and favors terms like "Sports and Convention Center.")

The Javits center would also expand northward from 38th Street to 40th Street, for a total of 1.3 million square feet.

In an effort to appease Madison Square Garden officials, the Jets have eliminated plans for an arena within the stadium complex.

"This version is proving more popular," said the president of the Jets, L. Jay Cross. "We've met with the three biggest show guys," he said, "and we're confident" that Javits exhibitors will bring 25 to 30 additional events to the stadium space. We'll attract more overnight visitors," he added, "providing a bigger economic impact for the region."

Hotel owners, who have sought to expand the convention center for more than a decade, believe that a larger exposition space will attract larger conventions, which would attract more guests for their hotel rooms and more customers for restaurants, shops and Broadway shows.

Charles A. Gargano, chairman of the Javits Development Corporation, said the stadium exhibition space and the convention center, which he said would be expanded in two phases, to 40th Street and then to 42nd Street, would provide a major economic stimulus.

"We will experience many more years of delay if we wait" to expand the Javits center to 42nd Street, he said. "The common-sense approach is to expand to 40th now."

But not everyone accepts the notion of the stadium as exhibition hall.

Like most exhibitors, Kevin McAvoy, senior vice president of Reid Exhibitions, the largest trade show company in the world, said his company was "in favor of any kind of expansion that provides more quality exhibition space for trade shows and other events we produce at the Javits."

But George F. Little II, the president of George Little Management, which produces 17 shows a year at the Javits, including the largest, the International Gift Show, said he was skeptical that the stadium would work well as an adjunct to Javits, given potential scheduling conflicts, management issues and the fact that it will not be contiguous with the convention center.

"The space is not ideal," he said, "and it's not a viable replacement or addition to the Javits. I may use it, but it's a pure add-on. My concern is that it won't be available when I need it."

Peter Nathan, a 50-year veteran of the trade show business who was head of marketing and sales at the Javits center in the 1980's, also criticized the stadium as exposition space.

"A big expansion will give larger shows an opportunity to come to New York and it'll allow the Javits to put on several shows simultaneously," he said. "But I just don't see the stadium being of any long-term help. It's being built for other reasons, football."

Building or expanding conventions centers is no guarantee of success, especially since the national supply of exhibit space soared in recent years while demand has faltered. The soon-to-be completed $800 million Boston Convention and Exhibition Center is already struggling, with initial bookings falling far behind projections, and it is now expected to operate at a deficit for years. The newly expanded Baltimore convention center is also a disappointment, although the 750-room waterfront hotel built nearby with public subsidies is reportedly booming.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

Clarknt67
February 9th, 2004, 09:32 AM
Why would they not go there, then?

Because then they'd be in Vegas and not the Big Apple! :lol:

NYguy
February 9th, 2004, 04:57 PM
The concerts that would be held at an arena at the stadium are the ones tht would be held at the Garden...

True, but I meant the stadium, not arena, mega concerts. The Rolling Stones of the world. These always go to NJ and LI now.

That's the reason, also, that an outdoor amphitheater should be done already...one planned for Randall's Island that's way overdue and one for CI. This would draw concerts that always go the Jones Beach and PNC in Jersey.

NYC needs to make things available so that people don't have to go the burbs when you know they'd rather be at the big show.

The concerts ruled out for the stadium are the ones the would normally be held at MSG....

billyblancoNYC
February 9th, 2004, 05:28 PM
I like the stadium idea, but a stadium by Shea, that has more concerts, etc. and and even bigger Javits center (N and S expansion) might be a good idea as well.

Who knows.

BrooklynRider
February 10th, 2004, 03:12 PM
In this megalopolis, it just seems fitting that a parking free stadium be built. Manhattan is the end destination for commuter trains from NJ, LI, CT, Upstate. It is a destination on Amtrak. It is served by all subway lines. It is accessible via ferry, bus and helicopter. There is no real argument for a need to build it out in Queens in the middle of a 40 acre parking lot.

Kris
February 11th, 2004, 08:49 AM
Will Stadium Bring in Big Bucks?

By Graham Rayman
Staff Writer

February 10, 2004, 5:27 PM EST

The director of the city's Independent Budget Office Tuesday questioned whether the West Side stadium would be the economic engine portrayed by the Bloomberg administration.

IBO director Ronnie Lowenstein said her staff analysis concluded that stadiums don't lead to new tourism or the creation of new office towers or hotels. "We found that it is the one place where the economics literature is in agreement: stadiums don't generate economic development within the region," she said.

Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff and city Budget Director Mark Page are set to announce details this morning at City Hall of the long-awaited financing plan for the $5 billion far West Side development project. The plan ties the New York Jets/Olympics stadium to an expansion of the Jacob Javits Convention Center, and the broad rezoning of the West Side from 28th to 42nd streets to allow at least 28 million square feet of new office space.

Bloomberg aides said Wednesday's announcement will detail the partnership of three investment banks signed to come up with the financing method for construction of an extension of the No. 7 line, the cost of building a platform over the Eastern Rail Yard and the cost of new streets and parks.

While details have long been hazy, it appears that city officials hope new development will generate enough tax revenue to pay off the bonds. Developers also will be asked to pay fees to build in the area.

The financing for the stadium, slotted for the area over the western rail yard, was not mentioned. Previously, Bloomberg officials have said that the New York Jets will pay for the stadiums, but the state and city are still expected to contribute at least $600 million for the overall plan.

According to Lowenstein, stadiums don't generate new cash flow. Instead, they shift money from other local forms of entertainment. "Instead of going to the Metropolitan, they go to the Mets," Lowenstein said. "It's a substitute, coming out of their discretionary budgets. People don't fly in from out-of-town to see a game."

Doctoroff has often used the word "catalyst" to describe the stadium's role in generating new economic development, but some question the basis for that view.

"There is no evidence in the literature that stadiums lead to the creation of new office development," she said. "Instead, office growth is determined by demand for space, and job creation. It is a function of the local economy. Stadiums don't have any effect on that."

Rae Rosen, an official with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, said over the long term, the city's job growth is typically slightly less than the national growth rate. While business will account for a significant part of that growth, the health, education and social service sectors will absorb a similar share, she said. Those sectors, however, don't require the same type of office space eyed for the West Side.

"It's important to keep in mind the types of job growth likely to dominate the market, not just business, but social services, health and education," Rosen said.

Copyright © 2004, Newsday, Inc.

NYguy
February 13th, 2004, 09:55 AM
Daily News...

Jets stadium ready in '07?

By MELISSA GRACE and MICHAEL SAUL

A Jets stadium could be completed in Manhattan as soon as 2007 under an ambitious plan to fast-track major West Side projects, a top aide to Gov. Pataki said yesterday.

Charles Gargano, chairman of the Empire State Development Corp., also spoke of doubling exhibition space and increasing meeting room space tenfold at the "inadequate" and "outdated" Javits Convention Center.

"There is a significant void in the West Side and that is the Jacob Javits Convention Center," Gargano said in Brooklyn.

Gargano is spearheading the two-phase project, which also includes a controversial stadium for the Jets, whose Meadowlands lease is up in 2008.

The first phase would expand the convention center north to 40th St. and south to 33rd St.

This phase could cost as much as $2 billion in public funds, including about $600million for the stadium. The Jets will spend $800 million on the stadium.

Construction is set to begin in the spring of 2005, and city officials are hoping the stadium will boost New York's chances of winning its bid to host the 2012 Olympics.

Gargano said the stadium is expected to be completed in 2007 - earlier than originally envisioned - and the entire first phase should be finished in 2009.

The second phase would bring the convention center north to 42nd St. and include a premier hotel. This phase will cost about $500 million and wrap up in 2012, Gargano said.

Kris
February 15th, 2004, 02:43 AM
February 15, 2004

WEST SIDE

The Big Bang Theory and a New Jets Stadium

By STEVE KURUTZ

Since the announcement of a proposed football stadium on the West Side to house the Jets, debate has swirled over weighty issues like the cost of the project, its financial return and its environmental impact. But some West Siders are concerned about something on a more human scale: tailgaters.

For many football fans, arriving early to drink and barbecue is as integral to football as the pigskin.

"A third of the fans tailgate,'' said Jim DeBosh, a spokesman for the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority, which operates the current home of the Jets, the Meadowlands. "Some have elaborate parties. They set up tents and bring big grills."

In their wake, however, they often leave congested traffic, noise, piles of trash - the cleanup bill runs to $30,000 a game, Mr. DeBosh said - and, occasionally, burning cars.

The last problem may seem far-fetched, but at the Meadowlands last June, for example, six cars caught fire when hot barbecue coals were left too close to a parked car during an N.B.A. game.

"There are a lot of residential streets on the West Side," said John Fisher, who lives in the neighborhood and is worried about the potential troubles of tailgating at the proposed stadium, which would face the Hudson River from 30th Street to 34th Street. "Let's say you got a guy with an R.V. and he and his buddies find a spot, set up and put grills on the sidewalk."

According to Matt Higgins, a vice president of the Jets, there are no plans to build a large, centralized parking area like the 25,000-space lot at the Meadowlands. Such a lot would make it easier to monitor tailgaters and clean up trash. But if the stadium is built, he said, tailgating will be a moot point.

"It's going to be similar to other stadiums in urban environments," Mr. Higgins said. "Most people will arrive by subway and go to a local bar or restaurant instead of tailgating."

Moreover, in contrast to the Meadowlands, the city has many regulations on outdoor grilling - grills, for instance, must be at least 10 feet away from a combustible surface - although enforcing such rules may be a challenge, given the vast number places where intent fans could set up.

Chad Marlow, a resident of the West Village, a Jets fan and a seasoned tailgater, believes that fans will merely adapt the suburban tradition to the city.

"Cooking on the grill and tossing a football around is part of the whole football atmosphere," said Mr. Marlow, who opposes the West Side stadium plan. "I can see people bringing coolers and portable hibachis and setting up wherever they happen to be."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

NYguy
February 16th, 2004, 08:35 AM
(Daily News)

Stadiums may alter image of staid Mike

By DAVID SALTONSTALL

Mayor Bloomberg once bemoaned that he'll never "hit like Ted Williams, skate like Bobby Hull or shoot like Larry Bird."

Yet the nerd-turned-mayor might end up leaving his biggest mark in the city's sports arena.

Bloomberg is rooting for two new stadiums for the Jets and Nets - and has put considerable resources and time into the city's bid for the 2012 Olympic Games.

It's not that the mayor, who wrote in his 1997 autobiography that he had never been much of a sports fan, has changed his ways. Like almost everything else for Bloomberg, it's about business, his aides say.

"What he sees is bringing two businesses back to New York City," said Dan Doctoroff, Bloomberg's deputy mayor for economic development, referring to the Jets and Nets. "He sees two components in a much larger economic development strategy, and he also sees the construction of two iconic buildings in New York City."

There's still a long way to go before ground is broken on any of them. Financing for all three projects remains vague. Stiff neighborhood opposition surrounds each plan, and the Olympics is a long shot, given the fierce global competition.

But many agree that at least the Jets' proposal for a new football stadium on Manhattan's West Side, as well as the Nets' dream of building a new home in Brooklyn, are solid prospects with a growing fan base within the city's business and political establishments.

The Jets stadium would double as a 180,000-square-foot extension of the Javits Center, and the Nets project would include 4,400 apartments and 2.4 million square feet of office and commercial space.

Bruce Ratner wants $150 million from the city for street improvements around his Frank Gehry-designed Brooklyn stadium, and the Jets want $600 million from the city and state.

But Bloomberg seems eager to play ball - a fairly remarkable turnabout, given his history.

After all, this is a mayor who on his first day in City Hall said the administration would pursue sports stadiums only "when we can afford them."

"At the moment, everybody understands - given the lack of housing, given the lack of school space, given the deficit in the operating budget - it is just not practical this year to go and to build new stadiums," Bloomberg said on his eighth day in office.

STT757
February 16th, 2004, 12:10 PM
There are a lot of residential streets on the West Side," said John Fisher, who lives in the neighborhood and is worried about the potential troubles of tailgating at the proposed stadium, which would face the Hudson River from 30th Street to 34th Street. "Let's say you got a guy with an R.V. and he and his buddies find a spot, set up and put grills on the sidewalk."

Even if people were tailgating on the streets surrounding the stadium it would only be for a couple hours on Sundays about 8 times a year, it's not like the NFL has a long season.

Kris
February 24th, 2004, 08:22 AM
February 24, 2004

Broadway Joins Criticism of West Side Stadium Plan

By CHARLES V. BAGLI

The West Side rail yards, where the city, the state and the Jets want to build a $1.4 billion football stadium with a retractable roof, is at least 13 gritty blocks away from the Broadway theater district around Times Square.

But theater owners like Gerald Schoenfeld and Rocco Landesman and union workers who make their living in a business that attracts 225,000 patrons a week say that the proposed stadium would cast a dark shadow over one of the city's most important tourist attractions. It would, they say, obstruct traffic and discourage tourists and New Yorkers from visiting the theater district. Further, they say that the stadium, which would double as a central Olympic site if the city wins its bid for the 2012 summer games, would contribute little other than congestion to the city's economy.

Mr. Schoenfeld and Mr. Landesman, who together own 22 of the 35 Broadway theaters, and Tom Short, president of the 5,000-member International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, have emerged as outspoken critics of the city's effort to build the stadium, a key element of a comprehensive plan to expand the nearby Jacob K. Javits Convention Center, extend the No. 7 subway line and transform the low-scale far West Side of Manhattan into a high-rise residential and commercial district.

Generally the city's West Side efforts have enjoyed at least modest public support from the hotel industry, the real estate lobby and the chamber of commerce. But the stadium has become a flashpoint. There have been rumblings among some business and civic leaders. And now the theater industry is adding its voice to a small chorus of opposition that includes community groups, local politicians and even some trade show executives who contend that the stadium could interfere with the expansion of the Javits.

"The stakes for the city are enormous," said Mr. Schoenfeld, chairman of the Shubert Organization, Broadway's biggest landlord. "I think the Javits can expand without being tied to an Olympic Stadium. There is no evidence of a stadium having a positive effect on an urban center. This is a valuable piece of real estate; we should not be rushed in deciding its fate."

Mr. Schoenfeld and some leading real estate executives favor building the stadium in Queens, where they say it would less disruptive.

The Jets have been puzzled by the chilly reception for the 75,000-seat stadium, despite its offer to invest $800 million, more than any other professional team has ever put into a sports arena in the United States. Plans call for the city and the state to invest an additional $600 million in constructing a retractable roof and a platform over the rail yards, on which the stadium would be built. That brings the total cost to at least $1.4 billion, or two to three times that of recently built sports structures.

Economists generally view stadiums as poor public investments that enrich teams and players, but do little to spark new business in the area other than parking lots.

But stadium advocates contend that the Jets stadium would provide a broader public benefit because it is designed to provide up to 200,000 square feet of exhibition space for the adjacent Javits Convention Center, which brings in more visitors. Traffic congestion should be less of a problem, the Jets say, because the team plays only 10 home games a year, usually on Sundays.

Unlike Mr. Short's construction union brethren who have embraced the stadium, Mr. Short himself has denounced it as a problem for the neighborhood.

"Many of our members live in that area, and they could be displaced by this, " said Mr. Short of the stage employees union.

Deputy Mayor Daniel L. Doctoroff has put the stadium and the plans for the West Side on a fast track for approval, which has upset those who want a public debate over the use of the city's scarce resources.

"A lot of people are shy about articulating their concerns, because they don't want to alienate the mayor," said Mr. Landesman, president of Jujamcyn Theaters.

After Mr. Doctoroff unveiled a financing plan last week, for one portion of the West Side plan, real estate executives began questioning the estimates. The city plans to create a development corporation that would issue $3.7 billion in bonds and short-term debt for the subway line extension, new streets and a deck over the eastern rail yard.

Mr. Doctoroff said the bonds would be paid for by selling development rights and from new taxes generated by office and residential buildings constructed over the next 30 years. The plan envisions selling the development rights for $100 a square foot, while instituting property taxes equivalent to $12 a square foot. With a vast supply of development rights to sell, real estate executives said, it is unlikely that the city will get anything close to $100 a square foot.

The New York Times Company recently paid about $58 a square foot - far less than Mr. Doctoroff envisions - for development rights for a new headquarters to be built at Eighth Avenue and 40th Street, away from the higher prices of Times Square but still considered a far more desirable block than the 11th Avenue sites envisioned by Mr. Doctoroff.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

NYguy
February 25th, 2004, 08:01 PM
Another anti-stadium piece. Pick it apart where you will...

(NY Observer)
http://nyobserver.com/pages/frontpage1.asp


Touchdown Mike: Mayors game plan on Jets New Home

by Blair Golson

On Feb. 25, a group of West Side Jets fans are scheduled to fire up hot dogs and grills outside a West Side theater to protest the end of tailgating as they know it.

City officials are due at the theater to present their redevelopment plan for the Hudson Yards district, the centerpiece of which is a new stadium for the New York Jets. Many fans are worried that the quintessential tradition ofraucous Meadowlands tailgates won’t survive the trip across the Hudson.

It should make for an odd sight: Jets fans from Manhattan protesting the team’s move to New York.

It also might be a case of too little, too late.

In a city that requires a Kafkaesque odyssey through government red tape just to change the brick façade on your townhouse, it might come as a surprise that New Yorkers will have no direct say over whether the Bloomberg administration should get to build a $1.4 billion stadium-cum-convention-center on the far West Side.

You could be excused for thinking otherwise. After all, it’s going to cost the public a minimum of $600 million, not to mention the fact that it will make a monolithic mega-block from 30th to 33rd streets on prime Hudson River real estate.

The City Council doesn’t have any real say in this matter because that stretch of waterfront property is state-owned land, and therefore outside the Council’s purview. But in a bureaucratic sleight of hand that stadium opponents have likened to a move out of Robert Moses’ play book, the administration seems to have found a way to cut the State Legislature out of the loop as well.

And as that fact has quickly become apparent in the last few weeks, more and more leaders in government, business and civic circles are beginning to question the underlying arguments for the stadium in the first place.

The stadium is supposed to serve as valuable expansion space for the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center, but convention-show experts are deeply divided over how much value the stadium will actually add to the Javits Center’s profile.

The stadium is supposed to spur new development in the Hudson Yards district, but urban-design experts question whether businesses or residents will want a stadium as a neighbor.

The stadium is crucial to the 2012 Olympic bid, but Olympics analysts argue that the Games are too much of a long shot to be driving development policy; and in any case, the Olympics could be hosted in Queens.

Many critics are now wondering why, exactly, a stadium is the only option under consideration. Why not three blocks of residential or office towers that would equal, or exceed, the economic impact generated by a stadium/convention center?

The Bloomberg administration’s answer has been that the development of the site is going to take a huge public investment, and the Jets’ $800 million offer to become permanent anchor tenants on the site is too good an offer to pass up.

The proposed stadium site is currently a three-block stretch of M.T.A.-owned rail yards. The city and state need to build a $400 million deck atop the yards before a stadium can be built. (And in order for the stadium to function as a convention center, they will need to spend an additional $200 million for a retractable roof and air-conditioning system.) The Jets, in pledging to pay $800 million for the construction of the actual stadium, are essentially guaranteeing that the city won’t end up with an empty deck.

Stadium opponents, however, call that argument disingenuous, pointing out that just one block to the east, the city is spending $350 million to build a deck over another three-block stretch of rail yards—and no developer has committed any money toward the development of that site. If the city and state don’t need an anchor tenant on the eastern deck, the argument goes, neither do they need one on the western deck—especially given that it is highly desirable waterfront property.

Opponents of the stadium plan now include almost all local elected officials—from Congressman Jerrold Nadler down to the community board president—in addition to prominent Broadway-theater owners, the city’s public advocate, Betsy Gotbaum, various community groups and, to a lesser extent, the Regional Plan Association, which recently released a report that called for more study on the stadium.

"The evidence is not on the Mayor’s side," Ms. Gotbaum said in a statement on Feb. 11. "Stadiums do not lead to revitalization, even if you call them sports and convention centers. In this case, there’s reason to think that a stadium may cause industries to leave the West Side."

Groups in favor of the stadium include the city’s tourism bureau, the construction industry and the leaders of the city’s chamber of commerce and real-estate-industry trade group.

The New York Sports and Convention Center is the centerpiece of the Bloomberg administration’s plan to redevelop the Hudson Yards district, a 59-block area roughly bounded by 28th and 43rd streets, from Eighth Avenue to the Hudson River. That plan, which Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff formally announced two weeks ago, carries a $3.7 billion price tag, and calls for an eventual 40 million square feet of office and residential towers, an extension of the No. 7 subway line, 20 acres of parks and open space, and a deck over the eastern rail yards.

The stadium, however, will be financed separately, and Mr. Doctoroff has yet to announce a formal plan for its development. But lawmakers who have heard a broad outline of his plan are worried that, contrary to prior administration claims, it won’t require any kind of vote.

The stadium site is state-owned land, which makes it exempt from normal city zoning rules. But until as late as April of 2003, administration officials have been assuring nervous City Council members that the stadium’s development would be handled by some kind of state-level development corporation—the creation of which would require a vote by the State Legislature. But according to City Council member Christine Quinn, Mr. Doctoroff said at a recent City Council meeting that the stadium would now be developed through some kind of local-level development corporation—the creation of which would not require a vote.

"I take exception to the fact that [the administration] created the expectation of a vote by State Legislature on the entity that would develop the stadium proper," Ms. Quinn said, "and now they’re going down a different road, which does not include a legislature’s vote on the authority that will develop the stadium."

Mr. Doctoroff did not return repeated requests for comment.

The Jets will be hosting only eight to 10 home games per year, so in order for the stadium to make economic sense for the city, it needs to excel in its other role: convention center annex space. The Javits Center is currently moving ahead with plans to expand their current facility northward to 42nd Street, in addition to connecting to the stadium by means of a tunnel underneath 34th Street.

Jets officials predict that stadium’s 200,000 square feet of space will lure around 46 shows annually that otherwise would have passed the city by. Along with the taxes generated by football-related events, the Jets estimate $75 million in economic impact to the city per year.

Many convention-show organizers, however, see several potential problems with the stadium’s dual role. First, it won’t offer contiguous space to the Javits Center, which, according to Candida Romanelli, director of the New York International Auto Show, could result in some exhibitors in the stadium feeling like they are being relegated to the backwaters.

In addition, there may be scheduling conflicts with the Jets.

"The N.F.L. makes their game dates a year in advance," said Jeff Little, president of George Little Management, one of the country’s biggest show organizers. "The trade-show community books their shows years in advance. Nobody is going to book that place with the fear that they’re going to be put off by a football game."

On the other hand, a senior executive at Reed Exhibitions, another of the country’s large show organizers, said he is optimistic about the stadium’s prospects as overflow convention space.

"The Jets stadium option is necessary to hold other events, e.g. consumer shows, as an alternative location to the Javits for those meeting planners/exhibition management companies looking to hold events during Javits’ busy seasons," said Ken McAvoy, senior vice president for operations at Reed Exhibitions.

To pay back their construction loans for the larger redevelopment, the city and state are counting on developers to erect hundreds of tax-producing buildings. But what happens if no one wants a 75,000-seat stadium as a neighbor?

Jonathan Barnett, a renowned professor of city and regional planning at the University of Pennsylvania, said you can argue it both ways: Stadiums in downtown locations can provide a boost to locals bars, restaurants and tourist shops, but stadiums in neighborhood locations are anathema to most urban-planning principles.

"The problem with the West Side of Manhattan is that it’s disputed ground," Mr. Barnett said. "It’s between downtown and a neighborhood. If you listen to the downtown argument, it makes perfect sense. If you listen to the neighborhood argument, it also makes perfect sense."

The city has been fast-tracking the stadium project in large part because Mr. Doctoroff wants construction to have started by July of 2005, when the I.O.C. makes its decision about the Olympic host city. Mr. Doctoroff says that the stadium plan should go forward whether or not New York wins the 2012 Games, that the accelerated Olympic timetable provides a welcome stimulus to the city’s normally creaky development machine.

Many critics dismiss this reasoning, however, not only because the 2012 bid is a long shot at best, but because Queens could host the games. In October, Newsday reported that internal memos from the city’s Olympics organizing committee, NYC 2012, identify the Shea Stadium area as a viable alternative to the West Side of Manhattan. Mr. Doctoroff at the time characterized the report as merely a contingency plan, and that Shea was absolutely not under consideration.

Nevertheless, several Queens community groups have recently been meeting to discuss the idea of a Queens-based Olympics. Brian Hatch, a New Yorker who was a former deputy mayor in Salt Lake City during the lead-up to the 2002 Winter Games, has practically made a full-time job out of agitating for a Queens Olympics. His online blog, newyorkgames.org, is dedicated to picking apart the Bloomberg administration’s case for a Manhattan-based Olympics. And it seems people are listening. According to Mr. Hatch’s Web-monitoring software, the most frequent visitors to his site have the I.P. addresses native to NYC 2012 staffers.

NYguy
March 2nd, 2004, 08:50 AM
NY Times...

Javits Center Expansion Overshadowed by Stadium Debate

By CHARLES V. BAGLI
March 2, 2004

Almost from the day the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center opened in 1986 on the West Side of Manhattan, hotel and tourism executives have lobbied to expand it to attract more conventions and trade shows, and with them the patrons who will book rooms, eat at restaurants and attend Broadway shows.

Eighteen years later, the state and the city are on the verge of announcing a $1.4 billion renovation and addition to the convention center. But that plan is entangled with a proposal to build a $1.4 billion stadium for the Jets between 30th and 34th Streets, on the south side of the center. Both are crucial elements of the city's plans for the West Side and its bid for the 2012 Summer Olympic Games.

While the stadium has come under fire from elected officials and West Side residents, as well as Broadway theater owners, the expansion of the convention center has generally received positive reviews. The Jets say they have designed a stadium that would also provide 200,000 square feet of exhibition space usable for conventions.

"The goal is to create one unique competitive convention corridor," Deputy Mayor Daniel L. Doctoroff said, referring to the plans for the center and the stadium. "It'll be able to compete effectively for any major event, trade show or convention held in the United States."

A new 184-page report by PriceWaterhouseCoopers, which was commissioned by the Javits Convention Center, indicates that nearly doubling the center's size to 1.34 million square feet would attract half a million more visitors, 18 to 20 new trade shows and conventions, and nearly $700 million in additional business a year. But the report does not mention the stadium, a reflection of political and economic tensions.

Behind the scenes, some Javits executives, hotel executives and trade show producers have questioned how well the stadium would function with the convention center. More broadly, some economists say that the PriceWaterhouse projections may be too optimistic, given that the trade show industry is suffering from an oversupply of space and lower demand.

"The experience in recent years indicates that the expansion of major convention centers doesn't necessarily mean any increase in business," said Heywood Sanders, professor of public administration at the University of Texas in San Antonio. "Convention centers are discounting rates and providing incentives, or literally giving away space for free."

Last month, Charles A. Gargano, chairman of the Javits development corporation, formally announced that the state supported both projects. The cost of the expanded center would be covered by a hotel tax, cash from the city and refinancing of the center's debt.

The PriceWaterhouse report envisions an expansion from 38th Street north to 42nd Street, where there would be a hotel and ballroom, but the first phase would extend only to 40th Street, providing more contiguous exhibition space and 235,00 square feet of meeting space.

In the past, because of its relatively small size and lack of meeting rooms, the center has had difficulty attracting conventions and medical associations, whose attendees spend the most on hotels, restaurants and entertainment. The report shows that annual attendance is down from its peak in 1997, but PriceWaterhouse concluded that the addition would draw trade shows that do not currently come to New York, as well as larger conventions and professional associations. It warned, however, that while many large trade shows and association meetings have a big economic impact, they also bargain hard for discounts.

The center does well despite its size, high labor costs and the city's high hotel rates, the report concludes, because New York is a highly attractive international city in a region with a shortage of exhibition space.

Business leaders like Jonathan M. Tisch, chief executive of Loews Hotels and chairman of the city's convention and visitors bureau, have supported the expansion project because it would put "heads on beds" and draw other tourist business.

Not everyone, however, agrees that the stadium counts as an expansion of the convention space, even though it could be converted into an exhibition hall. Although the stadium has been described by Mr. Doctoroff as "the southern expansion of the Javits," L. Jay Cross, president of the Jets, was more modest.

"We're not saying this is the Javits expansion that they've been waiting for all these many years," Mr. Cross said. "It is a midsize, full-service exhibition hall that will serve as ancillary space for the Javits or stand on its own."

Brandishing letters from two trade show producers, Mr. Cross said there was enough demand from conventions and exhibitions that he could easily book 40 events annually, generating an estimated $38 million in tax revenue. The stadium would be connected to the center by an underground tunnel.

St. Louis is one of only three cities in the country that operate a convention center in conjunction with a stadium. The St. Louis complex, the Americas Center, is connected to a domed stadium by a short hallway. Bruce T. Sommer, its director, said he books 5 to 10 trade shows a year into the stadium, 4 religious conventions and about 5 consumer shows, as well as concerts and other sporting events. "Major trade shows do not like noncontiguous space," Mr. Sommer said. "No matter how you break it up, one piece will be better than another piece."

Among those who are not sold on the Jets stadium as a convention center is George F. Little II, whose company produces 17 shows a year at the Javits center. Mr. Little said a stadium would be no substitute for an expanded convention center, although he might book the stadium for certain events.

Mark Schienberg, president of the Greater New York Auto Dealers Association, said: "The stadium is a good-sized space to work with." But the primary need is to get the Javits expanded as much as possible."

Walter Mankoff, chairman of Community Board 4, whose district covers the West Side, described the stadium as an expensive project that would require $600 million in public subsidies. He said he doubted that it would do much convention business, but argued that it would bring traffic congestion and pollution.

"We do not agree on every detail, but we agree that the convention center needs an expansion and would be extremely helpful to the New York economy," Mr. Mankoff said. "We don't think the stadium is a proper expansion."

But even those who support expanding the center worry that the city is pushing harder for the stadium, which would require state legislation.

The expansion of the convention center is "the single most important public investment that the city and state can make," said Kathryn S. Wylde, president of the Partnership for New York City. "If a legislative package is not introduced in the next couple of weeks, we'll lose yet another year in what has been a tortuous, decade-long process."

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/03/01/nyregion/javits.jpg

The Javits Convention Center is represented by light orange, with the proposed Jets stadium, left, and the planned expansion of the center both in darker orange.

billyblancoNYC
March 2nd, 2004, 11:53 AM
I hate to say it, but it anyone thinking that maybe a full expansion of the Javits and a Jets stadium in Queens would be a better investment/plan. Just seems that a Javits that is close to 2mm sq. ft. would be a better economic tool. The stadium in Flushing would be more car-accessible and has LIRR and 7 train access already.

I dunno. Love the waterfront Manhattan idea, but is it the best solution, overall?

TonyO
March 2nd, 2004, 04:35 PM
People have mentioned the idea of having Jets stadium in Queens. An idea I would fully support if there were homes in Manhattan that were going to be tore down to build it.

But, that is not the case. The car argument seems backwards. The city has the transit infrastructure in place already, as well as proposed extension of the 7. Why is car accessability the primary concern for a stadium? Tailgating? That would be the only decent argument for more cars IMO.

Whether cars travel to/from a game is convenient or not is going to have zero impact on the games' attendance. Manhattan is centralized, Jersey and Queens are not. Just think of all those "Jersey" NY fans who would never go to a game again if the path was to Queens. How many Mets fans come from Jersey to the games?

ZippyTheChimp
March 2nd, 2004, 06:10 PM
I favor an expansion of the convention center over the railyards, and a Jets/Olympic stadium in Queens.

The original argument for the stadium in Manhattan was as the centerpiece of the Olympics. But if NY doesn't get the 2012 Olympics, which seems likely, is the football stadium the best engine for development of the West Side?

Everyone is saying that the Javits expansion is of primary importance, and the stadium is touted as providing convention space. But will the quantity and quality of that space be as good as a seamless addition to the Javits?

I don't understand why the Jets have so much leverage here. The city acts like they are already in New York and will leave unless they get a Manhattan stadium. Hello Dan Doctorof - they are in NJ playing in someone else's house. They are desparate for a place of their own and would like to return to NYC. Offer them Flushing Meadows. Where else could they go? Their alternative is to build a stadium in New Jersey, which would be no different than Queens.

Eugenius
March 2nd, 2004, 07:04 PM
I think that Doctoroff, or Bloomberg, specifically mentioned that the stadium would be built regardless of the Olympics bid.

With regard to putting the stadium in Queens, I think that this would severely limit the Jets attendance market. While Queens is readily reachable by subway from Manhattan, it is a pain to get there from the Bronx or Brooklyn. You basically have to take a train to Manhattan and another one to Queens. New Jersey fans would not even bother.

ZippyTheChimp
March 2nd, 2004, 07:23 PM
Before moving to Giants Stadium, the Jets played at Shea. They had no trouble filling it up, in spite of the fact that it was a lousy place for football.

BPC
March 2nd, 2004, 08:47 PM
Whether cars travel to/from a game is convenient or not is going to have zero impact on the games' attendance. Manhattan is centralized, Jersey and Queens are not. Just think of all those "Jersey" NY fans who would never go to a game again if the path was to Queens. How many Mets fans come from Jersey to the games?

As someone who used to live in NJ many years ago, I can tell you that everyone (and I mean EVERYONE) in New Jersey owns a car, and uses it to get everywhere (except into Manhattan on workdays). Driving to Flushing on a Sunday afternoon is actually easier for most car-driving Jersey-ites than driving to the West Side. The latter requires you to take the permanently gridlocked Lincoln Tunnel, only to have no place to park when you make it through. The former allows you to cross the GW and Triborough Bridges, which run fine on weekends, and park in a lot. The tolls are worse, but compared to game and ticket prices, will hardly be keeping anyone away.

As for public-transit taking New Yorkers, the Flushing site ALREADY has subway access (on the same 7 train, no less), and thus we can save a couple billion dollars extending the line to what amounts to nowhere. Public transportation to Flushing is better than to the West Side for Queens residents and Long Islanders, about the same for Brooklyn and Bronx residents, and worse only for Manhattan residents. Why should we Manhattanites always get everything at everyone else's expense?

billyblancoNYC
March 3rd, 2004, 02:23 AM
The decrease in Jersey people would be more than made up, I'm sure, by an increase in Queens, LI, Brooklyn, Westchester, Bronx and even CT people.

I'm not saying the stadium is a BAD idea for the West Side. I just think sometimes that it might make more sense overall to have an even more massive Javits.

Besides, the Mets suck and draw 35K, when they're good, it's sold out. And does the USTA have an issue putting asses in seats for the US Open?

ZippyTheChimp
March 3rd, 2004, 07:02 AM
I agree.

It's also not valid to compare baseball and football attendance. Football is a once-every-other-weekend event, and the fans will travel farther to games. For 2 years in the 70s while Yankee Stadium was being renovated, the Giants (who were in the midst of the infamous 15 years of lousy football) played at the Yale Bowl in New Haven - and the fans went to the games. I think the Giants or Jets could play anywhere in Metro New York and draw fans.

TonyO
March 3rd, 2004, 10:50 AM
The situation doesn't appear to be one-or-the-other...Javits won't be bigger if there is no Jets stadium on the west side.

I think that having the Olympics would be great, but having a stadium in the city is a reason in itself. The uses will be more than just football, there will be (real) football, concerts, special events. Plus, the team is paying the majority of the cost, not the typical deal (while I agree the Jets would never threaten to leave NY).

Queens already has a stadium. :D

NYatKNIGHT
March 3rd, 2004, 11:34 AM
It may seem likely that NY won't get the Olympics in 2012, but it's certainly not definite. It would be definite if there was no West Side Stadium. If NY doesn't get the Olympics in 2012, my guess is the city would go for the 2016 Games and be the favorites - that is, unless they don't build that stadium.

Taking everything else out of the equation - football attendance, tailgating, conventions, and an economic engine for the West Side - if we're talking about New York EVER getting the Olympics, I think the Doctoroff and the City feel that the West Side Stadium is essential.

BPC
March 3rd, 2004, 03:29 PM
NY OBSERVER:


West Side Stadium: A Bad Idea


The Observer has previously endorsed plans by the city and the state to assist the New York Jets in building a 75,000-seat, state-of-the-art football stadium on Manhattan’s far West Side. But after re-examining the likely impact such a stadium would have on New York’s quality of life and economic health, we must admit that we’ve made a mistake, dazzled like everyone else by a 2012 Olympics in the city and a football team in our backyard. Instead of bolstering the city’s economy, the proposed stadium would be a flagrant misuse of a priceless plot of land in the heart of the city which, if developed over time with care, could become a residential, retail and commercial complex to rival New York’s most exciting and desirable neighborhoods.

Prominent, long-time New Yorkers are starting to speak out against the plan, including Broadway theater owners who are rightly concerned that the increased stadium traffic would cause gridlock in the theater district and make attending the theater a daunting proposal for New Yorkers and tourists. "The stakes for the city are enormous," Gerald Schoenfeld, chairman of the Shubert Organization, told The New York Times. "There is no evidence of a stadium having a positive effect on an urban center. This is a valuable piece of real estate; we should not be rushed in deciding its fate." Despite their glamour, sports stadiums are famous for doing almost nothing for the surrounding neighborhood or larger urban economy. A 1996 study by the city comptroller concluded that professional sports events account for just 0.7 percent of a city’s annual gross economic product. And the theater owners’ forebodings about jammed streets are entirely valid: traffic, already atrocious because of the Lincoln Tunnel, would be a disaster on game days.

The Jets are claiming that the stadium will serve as a magnet for residential and office construction in the immediate area, and Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff has asserted that the $3.7 billion in bonds and short-term debt which the city plans to offer to pay for sprucing up the far West Side would easily be paid for by selling development rights to these phantom office and residential buildings. But the stadium would likely have the opposite effect: No developer with significant resources is going to want to build in the vicinity of a sports arena—who would want their office or apartment in the shadow of a stadium? Just look at any football stadium in America, and you will see that the stadium does not foster commercial or residential construction. The stadium in downtown Atlanta is a prime example; apart from the days when the Falcons play, it is a deserted and forlorn area.

It seems that Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Governor George Pataki have been enticed by the Jets’ argument that the stadium could also be used for the 2012 Olympics—or maybe they’ve been enticed by the fact that Jets owner Robert Wood Johnson IV is a major contributor to the Republican Party and George Bush’s re-election effort. In any case, the Olympics argument holds no water: There is plenty of space for a stadium in Queens, and a Queens site would be closer to the proposed Olympic village, so athletes would be easier to transport to and from the competition.

Deputy Mayor Doctoroff will argue that without the stadium as an anchor, the far West Side will never be developed. But the above facts, and common sense, show the opposite to be true: A stadium would strike a long-lasting blow against any chance of transforming the area into a vital, revenue-producing neighborhood. The city and state plan to add $600 million of taxpayer money to the Jet’s $800 million investment. That public money would be far better spent on infrastructure—such as extending the No. 7 subway line—to support future, measured development in the area. Or how about taking that money and investing it in the redevelopment of lower Manhattan?

The Jets’ willingness to pay for a stadium is not sufficient reason to hand them this magnificent piece of real estate for a team that will only use it eight to 10 times a year, and maybe another eight to 20 days for practice and media events. The far West Side should be, and will be, redeveloped in the coming years. The area will either become one of the city’s treasures—or home to a glitzy stadium surrounded by a wasteland that will stand as a symbol of Mayor Bloomberg’s and Governor Pataki’s failure of vision.

NYguy
March 5th, 2004, 09:01 AM
Newsday...

West Side Stadium's traffic impact minimal, Jets say

By Errol A. Cockfield, Jr.
March 5, 2004

Jets officials said yesterday that a survey of season ticket holders shows that a proposed stadium on the West Side of Manhattan would generate 7,378 auto trips on game days, but that 70 percent of attendees would use public transportation.

The survey by the National Football League franchise was met with skepticism from critics of the stadium project, who noted that the findings may not take into account shifting transportation choices among fans in the future. The stadium is slated to open for the 2009 season, pending government approval.

"This year, fans may go with their buddy, and five years from now, they may go with their kids," said City Councilwoman Christine Quinn. "Are they going to travel the same way?"

The Jets based their findings on a survey of 600 season ticket holders throughout the metro area. Matthew Higgins, the team's vice president for strategic planning, said the study's most significant result showed that three out of 10 attendees will use cars. The team's current home at the Meadowlands generates 30,000 auto trips, Higgins said.

"This will reduce the number by 23,000, which is a significant net benefit to the environment and a reduction in traffic," Higgins said.

The negative impact a proposed stadium could possibly have on traffic in an area — already notorious for its bottlenecks — is one of the key factors cited by local residents, civic groups and elected officials who oppose the plan.

"This stadium would be placed right in the middle of the most horrendous traffic in the metropolitan area, traffic which is already choking midtown businesses," said state Senator Thomas Duane (D-Manhattan).

It is also unclear whether those fans will benefit from the extension of the No. 7 Subway line, a project included as part of $2.77-billion redevelopment of the city's West Side.

Higgins, however, noted that there is enough parking near the proposed stadium site to accommodate the number of vehicles the team expects.

On Sundays, when the team would play, Higgins said, the Jets found there are some 10,000 vacant parking spaces within a 20-minute walk of the proposed site.

OKoranjes
March 6th, 2004, 08:00 PM
I am sorry, but as a resident of a major city with major traffic problems, Washington DC, I can tell you that building a stadium in the middle of the city will NOT be a traffic problem. People aren't stupid. They know that they cannot drive into the city for a game like they could in a suburban stadium. For example, they is never traffic for ANY major sports games or major concerts at the MCI Center in DC though it is in the heart of the city. Why? Because it was built over a subway station. On the other hand, the new Redskins stadium that was selfishly built by the old owner in the suburbs of Maryland has Major traffic problems simply because there is no other way to get there than to drive.
Please, stop thinking that this new Jets stadium will bring traffic problems, because it won't.

--

ZippyTheChimp
March 6th, 2004, 08:29 PM
Your example is better suited to the Brooklyn Nets thread. The MCI Center is an arena, not a stadium. The opponents to the Nets arena incorrectly label it a stadium.

With Bernie Ebbers under indictment, they really should change the name of that place. :wink:

Kris
March 6th, 2004, 09:15 PM
Continue here (http://forums.wirednewyork.com/viewtopic.php?t=944).