Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 164

Thread: Iron Triangle in Queens to Be Redeveloped

  1. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JCMAN320 View Post
    The Mets should of taken that into consideration when building the ballpark. However the Wilpons did say that they told HOK, now Populous, to keep the ballpark open to right field somewhat because the city promised that the Iron Triangle would disappear.
    The "Bullpen Gate" photo was originally posted by Radiohead in the Citifield thread. I made that point in post #535.

  2. #47
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    You seem to be saying exactly what I'm talking about. If not, describe these establishments. Will they be accessible from both inside and outside the stadium? If so, ticket-holders will have to be separated from the general public. If they're only accessible from outside the stadium, then they're subject to the conditions in the neighborhood.
    Arrangements can always be made to allow both groups to use the establishments. It all depends on how flexible they want to be. It's as easy as asking for ticket stubs to re-enter into the stadium for those that have tickets to the game. I don't see what the difficulty it would be in that.

    A viable neighborhood is the source of income during the off-season [Ttrepye's Fenway Park example]. Market forces adjust the rent and prices in these neighborhoods.
    Just like Coney Island during the off-season, they can always close up shop when there's no baseball. They don't have to be exactly like "Ttrepey's Fenway Park."

    Retail attached to Citifield would command premium rent. Do you think the present Iron Triangle neighborhood would attract retail operators willing to pay that rent?
    Again, this all depends on how badly the Mets want the retail businesses to be there. The rent is all up to them. They can lessen the rent as much as they want or even make it rent free in order to keep those businesses there. Remember, they are providing a service that the Mets want.

  3. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by antinimby View Post
    Arrangements can always be made to allow both groups to use the establishments.
    Almost anything can be done. Doesn't mean it's the smart move.

    Just like Coney Island during the off-season, they can always close up shop when there's no baseball. They don't have to be exactly like "Ttrepey's Fenway Park."
    I thought the main problem with Coney Island was the off season.

    Again, this all depends on how badly the Mets want the retail businesses to be there.
    I doubt that the Mets want to be involved in the retail business outside the confines of Citifield. Not until there's a real neighborhood outside.

  4. #49
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,773

    Default

    The main problem with putting things like Hard Rock or Hooters into a park is space. When you only have a certain amount of space to deal with, you do not have much choice in the matter.

    As people have been saying "but there are XX less seats!!!", removing space that is used for storage, maintainance, or internal ammenities will not do much to help the outside.

    I DO agree they need a bit more storefront to help with this. Maybe some more souveneir shops and the like that could be kept open all year round once the neighborhood picks up a bit, but right now, the Iron Triangle is a cesspit whose exposure should be limited.

    Hell, even demolishing the entire area and putting in GRASS would be better than what is there now!

  5. #50

    Default

    The extra space for amenities (restaurants, restrooms, wider concourses) have little to do with the decrease number of seats. That space comes from the increased footprint of the entire complex. Yankee Stadium had the exact same field dimensions, but overall several acres larger.

    Field dimensions largely determine the number of seats. All new ballparks have less seats, but that's because each seat takes up more room. 3 inches wider, 3 inches more legroom, and aisles a foot or two wider doesn't seem like much, but multiply it 50,000 times.

    If the Iron Triangle develops, the area outside Citifield will become more lively. It doesn't usually happen the other way around.

  6. #51
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,773

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    The extra space for amenities (restaurants, restrooms, wider concourses) have little to do with the decrease number of seats. That space comes from the increased footprint of the entire complex. Yankee Stadium had the exact same field dimensions, but overall several acres larger.
    Um, zip.....

    They are related (partially). That little league field you see in the left field area is an "amenity". That could have been seats. There is also a walkway bridge between right field and the andmin building located behind Center Field that could have possibly held a few hundred more.

    They also HAVE the admin building in the stadium, which is debatable. You really do not NEED to have that IN the stadium, but they still felt it was good to do so.

    Field dimensions largely determine the number of seats. All new ballparks have less seats, but that's because each seat takes up more room. 3 inches wider, 3 inches more legroom, and aisles a foot or two wider doesn't seem like much, but multiply it 50,000 times.
    Actually, it is the premier box seats that have more to do with the reduction in count than actual spacing. You are talking less than 10% increase in total footprint for the regular seats. On 60,000 seats that would have been no more than 6000 seats lost, not (what was it?) 10/12K.

    If the Iron Triangle develops, the area outside Citifield will become more lively. It doesn't usually happen the other way around.
    Well, they did a good job on CF, aside from the Bank logo on top (a bronze lighted plaque would have looked MUCH better and gave an even more classic look to the stadium... Right now it looks like there are plenty of ATM's available if you open your checking account with the Mets!).

    I think there is more incentive now to improve the triangle. You cant do much with it, since the soil SUCKS (trust me on this). But low-rise developments (no more than about 4 stories) could probably be pretty easily managed.... Hopefully the stadium will prompt development, and the development will spur MORE development, and we can get that area cleaned up.

    Question though, that area is FAR from dead. Where would that buisness go and who would it effect the most?

  7. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjahedge View Post
    Actually, it is the premier box seats that have more to do with the reduction in count than actual spacing. You are talking less than 10% increase in total footprint for the regular seats. On 60,000 seats that would have been no more than 6000 seats lost, not (what was it?) 10/12K.
    I used Yankee Stadium as an example, since the field dimensions are exactly the same. The reduction in seating in the new stadium is about 4000, in line with your 10%.

    You can't do that comparison with Shea and Citifield because the two layouts are different. Shea was too big. The upper deck was typical of cookie-cutter stadia, too far away. The place felt cavernous. From what I've heard from reporters, Citifield is a much better place to watch a ballgame.

    Yankee Stadium is the only new park that seats over 50,000. Most are 40-45,000.



    There are going to be problems in developing the Iron Triange. LAG precludes any high-rises. Coupled with that lower ROI per acre is the high cost of land prep. Besides the environmental cleanup, the area is a mud-flat. Lots of piles to be driven.

  8. #53
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,773

    Default

    The soil sucks. You need deep piles for any sizable foundation. Piles (or rather, driving them) can get expensive.

    That and there is very little utility service out there. I am not sure, but I do not think there is any sewer in the area, and all the power came from overhead lines string in from who-knows-where.

    So, in order to develop this area, there are many things that need to be done both publicly and privately to make it possible.


    It would be nice though!!!

  9. #54

    Default

    I heard something like $200 million for cleanup and land purchase.

  10. #55
    Forum Veteran TREPYE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    2,200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    You can't do that comparison with Shea and Citifield because the two layouts are different. Shea was too big. The upper deck was typical of cookie-cutter stadia, too far away. The place felt cavernous. From what I've heard from reporters, Citifield is a much better place to watch a ballgame.
    While I cannot minimize the impact of being at a live game because you are getting the best possible views of the game itself, something has to be said for being in the enironment of several thousand fans simultaneouolsy watching a game. Cheering or goraning together, the occasional comical comment by some wiseass or the simultaeous chant of "Let go Mets!" by thousands, the wave, or just enjoying the views from high up with a beer on hand and just chilling out. Sometime crappier upper level seats was fun all on to itself. Even tough the views were bad and probably you had to put tissues up your nose, you still felt like you was there.

    This is what the Wilpons screwed us out of, not so much during the regular season -as I know that most of the time they wouldnt sell out- but durinng playoff games 15,000 less fans will not get the experience of being at the game. I am willing to bet that like the many who brought seats on the last row of the upper deck at shea they were willing to sacrifice viewing quality for the experience of being there.

    This whole viewing experience thing was a guise to give the Wilpons an excuse to shrink the stadium.

  11. #56

  12. #57

    Default NYC EDC Buys two more properties in WP. Now controls 65%`

    http://irontriangletracker.com/2009/...-council-vote/

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    NYC ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION REACHES NEGOTIATED PROPERTY ACQUISITION AGREEMENTS WITH TWO ADDITIONAL
    WILLETS POINT BUSINESSES


    City Now Controls Nearly 65% of Property in Willets Point


    Creating Conditions to Build New Housing, Office Space and Parks, Provide New Jobs, and Fostering New York City’s Long-term Growth Is Part of the City’s Five Borough Economic Opportunity Plan




    New York City, May 26, 2009 – New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC) today announced it has signed property acquisition agreements with two additional property owners at Willets Point, Queens. The acquisitions announced today total 34,403 square feet, bringing the amount of land now controlled by the City to about 40 acres, or 1,742,400 square feet. The agreements are the ninth and tenth negotiated land acquisitions in Willets Point, also known as the Iron Triangle.

  13. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    west village
    Posts
    437

    Default

    a june '08 thread i made on shea/citi - including a tour of the iron triangle:

    http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/inde...c,16528.0.html

  14. #59

    Default

    My second blog post using the new Wired New York Wordpress platform - The Iron Triangle in Queens

    You can make comments - just as you expect from a blog - although it's a different membership system from the forum.

  15. #60

    Default City Closes on Willets Point Land and Lighthouse synergies?

    http://www.observer.com/2009/real-es...-opponents-que

    Interesting tidbit regarding the Queens Chamber of Commerce eyeing the Lighthouse group as a potential developer.

    http://www.newsday.com/sports/hockey...sEnabled=false

    There would be great synergies to build out the "convention center" space as a multi use 20,000 seat arena.

    The lighthouse project is dead in Hempstead and could easily be adapted to the 60 acre Iron Triangle to be a world class the housing, arena, entertainment, lifestyle district.

Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Queens Plaza Being Cleaned Up
    By Agglomeration in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: January 15th, 2014, 08:40 AM
  2. The Panorama of the City of New York at the Queens Museum of Art
    By NYguy in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: September 19th, 2010, 05:18 PM
  3. Seeking Urban Essence and Finding Queens
    By Kris in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: May 28th, 2007, 01:44 AM
  4. Manhattan Skyscrapers and Queens
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: October 20th, 2004, 08:11 PM
  5. Old Fort Awaits Life as City Park - Queens
    By Kris in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 29th, 2004, 11:05 AM

Tags for this Thread

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