The YBTD Pro/Rel Thread, Part 9,614

That's a lot of words to say "I like nice stadiums. No pro/rel, please."

 

Not really even remotely what I said, but okay then...

...unless your opinion is that only new stadiums can be nice, that England and the rest of Europe will ever be able to sustain the type of stadium building rate that we do here, and that public stadium financing is truly a desirable goal in perpetuity considering that the Daniel Snyders of the world abuse the system in place. It's one thing when you're MLS and setting up a viable league and quite another when you're the Washington Redskins sitting in a stadium that's only 20 years old and already want a new stadium built. And for the record, I wish Old Yankee Stadium still existed and hope that Chelsea stay at Stamford Bridge.

 

OK, in your last paragraph, you said...

Much of what you were saying dealt with the Washington Redskins, Dallas Cowboys, new stadia, and an aside about the Cubs and Wrigley. However, the above point is interesting. You are proffering that economics in a franchise league favor stadiums and fan amenities, but the economics in pro/rel favors investment in team quality. That would be an interesting idea, it correct.

However, I'm not sure that team quality benchmarks are relevant to the NFL. The league is salary capped, so player budgets are the same across teams. Player development is different from European soccer. Is there a meaningful comparison in terms of an NFL team's ability to develop players (that come in after college) to that of an EPL team (who can sign and train teenage prospects)? Is MLB and its farm system more relevant? What about MLB team's ability to get public funding for stadia.

And, of course, we all know Marlin's stadium soured Miami-Dade on any public funding for Beckham's MLS bid.

 

Not entirely. There are also population and cultural aspects to observe, but yes, franchise leagues do favor stadium building due to the fact that they are more regional than local, as sports tend to be in Europe. The markets there are super-saturated at high and lower levels and the fandom is just as prepared to support a club in a lower league as they do those in the top flight.

As far as the comparison with player development, the NFL and NBA are not shy about their reliance on collegiate athletics in the development of the talent within their leagues. It's to the point where each have instituted questionable age regulations (especially in the NBA's case) while the populace as a whole have turned their heads for years to the NCAA's mishandling of the lives of their student athletes. Once again, Europe's attitudes and cultural understanding of athletics play a role in this as well. Due to the sheer number of professional clubs in each country, becoming a professional athlete (albeit, not always at astronomical wages) is a more realistic goal than it is for athletes in sports here. In my view, their affinity to the academy and residency system is due to them being able to see training in athletics as an education in it's own right. Therefore, the idea of someone who is already in a "university" of sorts to then be forced to be educated in skills that do nothing to further themselves in their chosen profession is wasteful to those who actually do need that education as more than a backup plan. I made a point in another thread about that using an analogy (which someone found to be funny... I aim to please ) about it being similar to why Hogwarts doesn't teach Math and History. I think it was on this site anyway...

Basically, the franchise system has set themselves up so that they can outsource everything to public and private institutions separate from themselves. They don't carry the costs for player development. They mostly don't pay for their own stadiums. (only LA has ever told the NFL to kindly fvck off with that stadium stuff and they'll be perfectly fine with no-strings-attached USC football... and actually meant it) Even most minor-league baseball teams are owned independently of their major league affiliates. So this is a cost that MLB teams don't have to carry themselves. That is the primary feature of the franchise system. It's only due to the fact that our soccer league has to compete with clubs worldwide and can potentially profit from player sales that MLS clubs take on these costs (academies, reserve teams, B-teams in lower leagues). This is one aspect in which MLS breaks with the general perks of the franchise system.

Yeah, but Miami never really cared all that much for baseball, let's be honest... even with two titles the team struggles with fans. The only teams that city truly seems to support are the Heat and the Dolphins. May have a bit to do with how the team was originally marketed (originally calling them the Florida Marlins might have been a mistake), but even after the name change, the brand hasn't really taken off there.

 

May I introduce you to Toyota Park, home of the [1998*] MLS Champion Chicago Fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiire!??



"A soulless bowl built in an industrial park, you say?"

Message Received-Loud and Clear!

Mission Accomplished!!!!!



(*8 years before moving into Toyota Park, of course. The Fire have won virtually nothing since moving to Toyota Park. 1 US Open Cup the year the stadium opened. Since then, bupkis.)

 

Finally got the message I meant.

 

New stadiums soulless bowls? The new Feyenoord stadium by OMA:


Vers van de pers: de nieuwste impressie van Feyenoord City, met rechts - voor eenderde in de rivier - het nieuwe stadion van Feyenoord. De Strip loopt naar de huidige Kuip. © OMA

Een blik op het stadion vanaf de Nieuwe Maas. Groots en meeslepend. © OMA

 

Will it float when climate change pushes that water level a few feet higher in a few years?

 

Nothing to fear in THAT respect:



Trump’s tweet said, "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."

 

I know, and Toyota Park is only soulless at the moment, since the Fire are being systematically destroyed by a vulture capitalist, his "shady" General Manager and wrecker of MLS teams (Chivas and MetroStars) and a hapless, clueless manager.

 

LOL, this is the Netherlands you're posting about. All that is already below sea level.

 

Actually one of the first designs for the stadium had a floating pitch that could be drifted in and out of the stadium.
That design didnot make it.

 

Because that's fiscally irresponsible and stupid

 

Water as a sound amplifier?

 

Probably aren't any. But from what it seems Minnesota might break that cycle.

 

No, it was because the location couldnot be acquired in the first place. It wasnot more expensive than other options.
Many thought it to be a brilliant idea, a landmark like the Sidney Opera House in the river.

 

If you know anything about waterfront construction, you'd know that wasn't true

A project that was supposed to take 4 years to complete at $7 million (AUS) and ended up taking 14 years at a cost of $102 million (AUS)

Any more questions?

 

I'm Dutch. That suffice I guess.

 

That doesn't mean you understand construction costs, it just means you eat tulips with every meal

 

The initial idea by the MVRDV bureau:

https://www.mvrdv.nl/projects/de-nieue-kuip
DE NIEUWE KUIP
Following a recent renovation of Rotterdam’s famous Feyenoord football club stadium, De Kuip (the bowl), it still sits amid mind-numbing expanses of deserted parking spaces, completely seperated from the city. The stadium should be part of animated city life, an emblem of the people. In 2004 MVRDV and Bouwhaven started an initiative to build a new stadium at an iconic location at the Maas, making it visible and accessible from many places in the city.

That idea taken into an area development plan:

Model 3: Maas, bruisende waterfrontontwikkeling aan de rivier


Klik voor vergroting

Vooral de ‘watervariant’ springt in het oog. Het model is geënt op het ‘aangemeerde’ stadion dat architect Winy Maas drie jaar geleden ontwierp: een sportstadion met ondergrondse parkeerruimten als ‘drijvers’. „Het is een soort Japanse schaal met ringen van meerdere ringen: parkeren, flaneren, kantoren, sportaccommodaties en eventueel woningen”, zei mede-oprichter van het spraakmakende architectenbureau MVRDV destijds bij de onthulling van zijn ontwerp in een vraaggesprek met deze krant. „Een gebouw dus waar je om meer redenen graag en met het hele gezin naartoe gaat, en niet alleen voor het voetbal.”


Het grootste voordeel van een stadion in het water is voldoende ruimte voor de overige geplande voorzieningen rondom het huidige onderkomen van Feyenoord. Nadeel daarentegen is een mogelijk noodzakelijke aanpassing van het Eiland Van Brienenoord omwille van de rivier.

Google Translation:
"
Especially the water variant catches the eye. The model is inspired by the 'moored' stadium architect Winy Maas designed three years ago: a sports stadium with underground car parking spaces as "floaters." "It is a kind of Japanese dish with rings of multi-ring: parking, strolling, offices, sports facilities and residential property," said co-founder of the acclaimed architectural firm MVRDV location at the unveiling of his design in an interview with this newspaper. "A building so where you have likes and family more reasons to go, and not just for football."

The biggest advantage of a stadium in the water is enough room for the other planned facilities around the current home of Feyenoord. The disadvantage, however, is a possible need to revise the Island Brienenoord because of the river."

 

I'm Dutch, I'm an Erasmus University graduated economist and I worked for the Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management. You know, the guys New Orleans and that coastal region hit by that superstorm a few tears ago in the neighbourhood of New York would have loved to have been in control of their waterfront constructions.
Any more condescending comments?

 

I think it would be a good idea to stop here as we are going of tangent of the thread and probably boring the shit out of the other posters.

 

So is Geert Wilders, but I'm not going to let that prejudice my opinion of you.

Still doesn't mean you understand the actual costs in constructing a structure. I'm sure you can do a sexy budget though.

I get to work with a lot of economic types that look over construction cost estimates without any understanding of what they're looking at, other than the numbers. "Why is this building more than this building, I can't take this to budget committee".

Don't get me started on the failures of coastal planning & development in the United States. But hey, that's what you get when you let politicians & developers set policy, creating failures they will rarely live to see.

I literally have volumes.

 

Lol!