Yes I lived in Cleveland Circle too so I hear that. (The D is brutal, why not take the C line from there? But I digress.) In your example I would suggest changing at Park then taking the red line to South Station - MUCH faster. Certainly not everyone but a lot of people live in Somerville, making the red line an easy way to get to South Station. You'd have to trek across town even if the UMass proposal went through anyway. A commuter rail stadium would definitely favor people who don't take the T, BUT it would at least make the train an option, which is the point.
The revs can't look at Stade Saptuo - there really isn't that much land in the city proper. Short of a stadium in JP somewhere down by the Arboretum, which would be a traffic nightmare on the Jamaicaway and is out of the way for many people (I lived near Forest Hills).
Isn't Chester, PA a suburb of Philly? Carless people go to those games. You even said, it's a ghetto. I guess I don't understand why carless Boston people wouldn't do the same.
I think we agree. Just for the sake of T memories... The C is fine, but medium slow. At least I would always get a seat. The D is the best. Fewer stops, no red lights. I think you meant that the B (which would serve most BC/BU kids) is brutal. Lots of stops, red lights, etc. It could be 45 minutes on the T alone (not to mention the waiting) from the Chestnut Hill Ave. B train stop (which was closest to my house) to Copley Square. If the service ran from Back Bay or South Station I would choose Back Bay. Three fewer green line stops (no Boylston or Park), no change to Red, but I would have to walk a little getting off a Copley. When I lived out there I took ZipCar to every home game.
This is the obvious and easy solution to solving the lack of transportation problem. In fact, if they were smart, Zipcar would sponsor the revs jersey and forge a healthy partnership with the team, maybe some kind of affiliate relationship with a revenue split. I think Philly may have that in place. Can't rely on the revs to think of that though. As a side point you are 100% right, the D is much faster. The B is the nightmare!
If you want to let your imagination run wild: http://www.bostonglobe.com/business...e-backs-out/Bnd4NE7ELu1e8WLgztbNRK/story.html
Lucy, tee up that football, I'm comin to kick it, and this time for sure, it's going right through those uprights!
Thanks for posting the link. I noticed the Globe HQ site is 16 acres. **In fantasyland where the pols and Krafts and NIMBYs dance and sing together**, Not sure if that would be enough to accomodate a revs SSS? Maybe the red line access would mitigate a potential need for tons of parking?
First off, I figure the chances of the Krafts actually buying the land is somewhere between none and none. Having said that, I'd think that in figuring out parking requirements for a stadium in Boston, they'd factor in mass transit. I'd be curious if there any official requirements.
Pretty much everything you need to know. For everyone who says "Oh, they're trying, but it's really hard to get a deal like this done," well, let's see how much effort goes into this. Not saying they should over pay for a bad deal, but if it comes out that they didnn't make more than a cusory inquiry before letting it drop, we'll know they just don't want to go through the trouble when you can just keep bringing up the rear in Foxboro. Besides, it's really hard.
That's what I was thinking too. The Globe spokesman in the article seemed pretty excited the previous buyer had backed out, indicating there is significant interest in the parcel at a much greater cost than the $70m it was purchased for. I understand the cynicism but still have to believe Kraft is one of those prospective buyers. It makes too much sense for him to NOT kick the tires on it. And Henry is a fellow owner - throw Krafty a bone JH!
Would someone remind me as to why---IF-- THERE WAS TRAIN TRANSPORTATION tp Fpxboro that our current stadium wouldn't be more than sufficient for our needs? Strikes me getting public transportation out to Foxoboro would be easier than finding appropriate in town land and building a stadium with sufficient parking and access infrastructure. For someone like me getting to an in town stadium would be harder than getting to and from our present location. I know we all want our own SSS stadium but we have a good place to watch a match and we aren't going to outgrow this stadium as the fans base contuinues to expand as the sport become more and more main stream. Just thinking???
Fair question. I think there are two major drawbacks to commuter rail vs. "standard" T. First is cost -- a one way trip to Zone 5 or 6 (which I'm guessing is right for Foxboro) is about $20 versus $4 (or nothing if you have a subway pass) for a stop on the T. Also, remember that most fans would need to spend the $4 plus the $20 since they'd need to get to South Station or Back Bay. Second is convenience -- T trains run on an every 5 or 10 minute basis typically, whereas the commuter rail is usually an hour or more between trains (in the case of the Pats train, they get there at a fixed time before and return at a fixed time after, but it's still fairly inconvenient). Finally, regarding the part of your post that I bolded, when will we "grow into" Gillette? It stinks as a soccer venue (as far as atmosphere) for fewer than 30,000 fans, and will probably always have the stigma of artificial turf.
If the Revs was a BOSTON team your first post would be more boa;id but it's a New England team and a lot of us drive from Maine. Ct, NH. RI where easy auto access is critical and where you might need to pay $20 for the train but we who drive would need to pay $20 to park so the argument is a wash. Same is true for convenience. Where one might have an argument is atmosphere but as someone who grew up with NFL teams getting less than 15K at most games I see the day coming where we fill regularly fill better than 40K rabid fans. Lastly, as a fan I don't care about having high end Turf. It's a lot better than most pitches around the world
High end turf: Opening up to all pitches in the world makes your statement true. But, it is not a better pitch than the top flight leagues MLS aspires to compete against in terms of overall product. Are there any turf fields in the top flights of England, Spain, Germany, or Italy? I really don't know. I think Ligue 1 has had as many as 3. Still, they seem to dislike it: https://www.lequipe.fr/Football/Act...ques-interdits-des-la-saison-2017-2018/683901. They intend to ban it, although I'm not sure what follow through will be. Still, I've seen the L'Orient turf from afar (they may have switched by now) and watched a number of L1 matches on turf on TV. Some thoughts/beliefs: The turf seems a bit longer although I can't prove it. Is Rev Turf shorter for NFL reasons? French turf fields do not seem to be compromised in dimension French fields are never covered with distracting paint (I can't recall even rugby lines though it must happen) NOR are they ever FURTHER compromised in dimension due to other sports or events. I never remember a team (I.e. PSG, Monaco, Lyon, Nice) sitting players because they were playing on turf I think that having turf isn't the core problem. Unrelated to Doc's post, I really think that when we reach 500 posts here it is time to rename the thread. "Futile REV SSS posts" seems appropriate. Regardless of what root cause one might choose (Kraft, the mayors, lack of property, lack of funding, god, the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus or a mix), I think history has thoroughly proven this is a futile discussion.
Still very far away. Still closer than the Revs are. Miami commissioners approve sale of land to David Beckham ownership group June 6, 2017, 4:30PM EDT MLSsoccer staff
Can you elaborate on this a bit? In the past, they've played OC games in other areas around New England, which is actually a nice idea to build the fanbase outside of their core area. Thye've played (not necessarily Open Cup) games in Ludlow, Providence, Porland, New Hampshire, New Britain. Or are you thinking that they've found it to be too difficult/expensive/political tp build an SSS in Boston that they're looking at Providence, which may be more open to this? I dunno if that's such a great idea. If the Pats did it, it would be one thing, but with the Revs, they might as well move to Lawrence or Wista....
If I were the Krafts, I wouldn't count on the City of Providence and/or the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations being "more open" to investing (public capital, infrastructure, tax breaks, etc.) in a soccer-specific stadium for the Revolution than the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and any of its constituent municipalities have been. Larry Luchino and his fellow Pawtucket Red Sox owners have seen their bid to garner state help to build a replacement for McCoy Stadium - first in Providence, now in Pawtucket - get little in the way of support from either state politicians, or the general public. And that's despite the fact that some version of the PawSox - either Double-A or Triple-A - has called Pawtucket home for 47 years. Frankly, there may be some Rhode Island pols and residents who choose to recall the Krafts' 1997 dalliance with Vincent "Buddy" Cianci regarding a Providence-based stadium for the Patriots as nothing more than a negotiating ploy aimed at eliciting a new home in Massachusetts. Granted, it struck me that Cianci was more of the driving force in those discussions. That said, "perception is reality" and there may be those within Ocean State political circles who - based upon what they might consider a 20-year-old snub - wouldn't be inclined to enter into an MLS stadium deal with the Krafts. Regional politics in New England can be rather provincial - and petty - that way. Bottom line? There's likely no more significance to next week's Revolution U.S. Open Cup match taking place at Providence College's Anderson Stadium than there was to past Rev's USOC tilts taking place in Boston (Allston), Ludlow, New Britain, Portland, etc.
Understood. But over the past couple of years, they seem to have had a good thing going in Cambridge in terms of both fan support and results. Not sure there was any reason to mess with the formula. Maybe it's coincidence, but if you give up all hopes of building in and around Boston, what's the next best spot? Which might be reason enough to play a game in Providence and see what kind of support they would get.