Quakes stadium construction thread

Excellent

 

Hmm...that seems to be the same type of measuring that I use when I tell my wife, "Get ready for ten inches, baby!"

 

Unfortunately, that's just for Wolff's kitchen remodel.

 

Hmmm...I've never met your wife have I?

 

Out of 19, we'll soon have:

Set (SSS or primary tenant with grass) = 13. Columbus, LAG, Dallas, Chicago, Colorado, Toronto, Salt Lake, Philly, New York, Kansas City, Houston, Montreal, San Jose. Some could be in better locations, but a SSS with grass is a good enough.

Nearly Set = 2. Portland, Seattle. Great locals. Great attendance. Field turf the only issue.

Needs some work: Chivas (needs home of their own), Vancouver, NE, DC. DC being the most pressing.

 

i am pretty sure that Vancouver falls into the same category as Seattle. both are not SSS but both are well designed for handling the soccer capacity for the MLS team. and along with Portland and Seattle, BC Place is in an excellent downtown location. they do have field turf. but they've signed a 1o year lease so putting them in the Needs Work category is disingenuous as they are in no way in the same or similar situation to NER or DCU or CHV.

 

1) Why?
2) What's wrong with where they're playing?
3) No different than the situation with SEA
4) I agree

 

Because this time, despite all the historical evidence to the contrary, "build it and they will come" will work.

Or at least, that's the belief of a number prolific BigSoccer posters.

 

You mean, like Sporting KC?

 

No, because Sporting KC didn't just "build it and they came" they fundamentally changed how they ran the team. In Sporting KC's case its because they changed owners, but as we've seen in Dallas and Colorado, building a stadium didn't help much until those FO's started changing how they ran the team. Building a new home for the Revs won't help significantly until the Revs change the way they run the team.

 

What about in San Jose? Will the stadium alone be transformative or does management need an attitude adjustment?

Honest question.

 

Honestly I don't know. San Jose is such an odd market with the E-Quakes leaving, returning, playing in a small stadium they're doing a pretty good job of selling out, etc. that its hard to know what's going to happen.

 

Ugh.

FIFA, for all their faults, finds nothing wrong with the three surfaces in the Northwest for professional competitions. They don't even mind if a World Cup Final Round is played on it. While none have been played on it, FIFA and UEFA have given the green light if they have the two-star rating.

 

Someone you know date of completion of construction of the stadium approximately?

 

I'll be impressed if it is that fast. Our stadium here in Houston was quick but it was still 15 months from when they actually started construction. OK, maybe April. If they really start in February. I guess that would just be a month or so quicker than in Houston.

 

the last renderings i saw showed the stadium only having 3 stands and one open end ... so that might save some time.

 

Vancouver's stadium is not that bad. It's on transit. It's basically paid for by the government (reducing costs to the club). It's pretty as hell. I's modern. Only problem is the grass. I'd call it "nearly set".

 

My thoughts on NE are:

- Building a new stadium does not imply a fundamental change in the way team is run.

- A fundamental change in the way team is run implies building a new stadium.

 

I may have a lot to do with who's doing the construction also, we're using these guys http://www.devcon-const.com/ and they don't lack for resources or labor.

• San Jose Earthquakes - MLS Soccer Stadium, San Jose: Development of a 14.5 acre site to accommodate an 18,000 seat Major League Soccer stadium with a 24,000 SF team office building. The stadium consists of luxury suites, press box, and concessions, and features a steel structure with aluminum decking, CMU concourse buildings, metal panels, metal screening and a partial canopy. The office building, which is a steel structure with glass, metal panel and CMU skin, consists of office space, team lockers and showers, coach and referee facilities, ticketing office, and physical therapy/training areas.

 

I think it would be the reverse actually. A fundamental change in the way that the team is run could go in many directions, including even negative ones, if that's possible. However, it doesn't appear that a stadium would get built w/o a fundamental change in the way that the team is run, or certainly a change in the amount of risk / investment that the ownership / management is willing to make.

 

Is that implying that the companies that built other MLS stadiums lacked in resources or labor? Manhattan Construction that built BBVA did so after building Jerry World in Dallas among other things. I don't think they lacked for resources or labor. And it still took about 15 months.

This source lists Devcon as the 133rd largest construction company while Manhattan was 39th last year.

http://enr.construction.com/toplists/contractors/A-Z.asp

 

Since you two are using a contranym (imply) it is possible you mean the same thing.