Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst ... 71314151617
Results 241 to 246 of 246

Thread: Proposed Jets Stadium on West Side

  1. #241
    Moderator NYatKNIGHT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Manhattan - South Village
    Posts
    4,240

    Default

    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.

  2. #242

    Default

    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.

  3. #243

    Default

    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.

  4. #244
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    The Nation's Capitol (DC)
    Posts
    61

    Default The traffic non-issue

    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.

    --

  5. #245

    Default

    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:

  6. #246

Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst ... 71314151617

Similar Threads

  1. Fading Into History: The Jewish Lower East Side
    By Kris in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: September 8th, 2014, 09:44 PM
  2. Lower East Side Tenement Museum fights for expansion
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: August 6th, 2010, 06:38 PM
  3. Hotel On Rivington - 107 Rivington Street - Lower East Side
    By Kris in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: October 12th, 2004, 12:19 PM
  4. Financing Plan Adds Complexity to Remaking of West Side
    By Fabb in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 11th, 2003, 05:55 AM
  5. Rich and Poor, Side by Side
    By Kris in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 5th, 2003, 07:11 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software