There's been a lot of debate and such all over BigSoccer about the Seattle expansion idea. It seems like Seattle itself is a city that everyone wants to see in MLS, but the idea of Qwest Field being the long-term plan is getting mixed reviews from across the country. But if/when Seattle gets an MLS team, the people that matter most are the Seattle fans; the ones going to Seattle's home games. This isn't a thread to prove anything; I'm just curious what the fans that matter think. As a soccer and a Seattle fan knowing you're getting an MLS team regardless, if you were personally given the choice as to what you hope the ownership did for your sports experience, would you hope that they would do: Stay at Qwest Field long term, build a 25,000-seat SSS within Seattle, or build a 25,000 seat SSS in a Seattle suburb? ---------------- Also, just for the sake of this poll, put money and profit aside, because it can be assumed that no matter what the ownership chooses, they'll draw up a profitable plan before anything else, assume that each game had an average of 22,000 a game, and assume that no matter which stadium you chose, the team still plays in MLS 2009. (and yeah, it's known that you'd support Seattle no matter where they played ) What would you the fans honestly like to see?
My dream scenario has always been for the Seattle MLS side to play in a renovated (i.e., completely rebuilt) Memorial Stadium in the Seattle Center. Then it's more or less the best of both worlds - location and atmosphere. You could get a bite to eat at Westlake Center, then hop on the monorail and be let off directly in front of a sparkling Seattle soccer specific stadium. Sigh... Short of that, though, I think I'd prefer Qwest. I really don't want to bring up the same old reasons that have been rehashed, oh, a gazillion times on these boards, but let me just say this....with the way Qwest's built, I can see it being very loud and intimidating, even at only about 1/3 capacity (22k fans).
There is really no place for a stadium in Seattle. Memorial is out. Qwest was built for an MLS team. So you second choice is really an invalid choice. The cost of land in the city is high and public funding is out.
Man this is a highly talked about topic isnt it? Personally I love Qwest I think the stadium can attract a large following of the Seattle MLS team. If we can draw in the low to the middle 20k that would be amazing! But im also torned between a SSS just because I believe if we built one it will be the best in the country for the MLS just as Qwest is the best in the NFL. Ive always like the idea of demolishing Memorial and building a facility both a Team and the Seattle Public school system can use, I mean even if the Mls team here doesnt play there they gotta fix that dump its terrible. With that said though I think Qwest is perfect for the team and fanbase its downtown, there is lots of stuff to do, bars, restaurants and did I say just a kick ass stadium? hahaa anyways whatever this subject has been beaten to death when 2009 comes I will be at Qwest watching the dream that is MLS Seattle. Forget what all those other haters say they are not gonna be here so who cares we all know how good of a facility it can be for a soccer team.
Personally, Id love a rebuilt Memorial (this IS a hypothetical question, so all questions are valid), but, Qwest Field is a SUPERB soccer facility and there's absolutley zero reason to built a SSS in Seattle coz we already have one. Period. When I sit in the SSS lower bowl of Qwest, I pay no attention to the "empty" upper decks and neither do my friends that go to games with me. MLS Seattle is going to be just fine. But to answer the question, my hypothetical answer would be a rebuilt Memorial, but I'm completely happy with Qwest. (Holy cow! A stadium that was built for the NFL AND MLS?? Yes, it's in Seattle. By the way, Im going to go to a hell of a lot more soccer games when MLS comes here...USL-1 is cool, and so is the Sounders success, but it's not Major League..which matters to me)
It seems the Seattle group is looking at three sites besides Qwest, two of which are in the city limits of Seattle and could offer a home at some point in the future for the team. I happened to talk with a guy who is in another business with one of the partners and has a strong soccer connection in the local area and seemed to know a lot about what was happening. Obviously Qwest is in the near-term plans, but they realize that the advantages of a SSS are tangible. Therefore, they haven't ruled out the possibility of a SSS some years down the road. It sounds like they are doing due diligence on other locations and running the numbers on what it would take to make a SSS financially viable versus Qwest. No surprise. Any investor would be doing that. This doesn't mean we will ever see a SSS in Seattle, but it also means that Qwest may not be the long-term home of the new franchise. I'm sure I haven't told anyone anything they have not already figured out already.
Well, hell if this is hypothetical I would love to see a floating stadium with a retractable roof that can be towed all over the Puget Sound. The Rolling Stones would be the house band and there would be strippers in the fan lounges that circle the field. Hash bars would be located at each end of the stadium and beer would be free. Each seat would have a urinal located on the back of it so nobody would have to leave when they took a leak. Screw Qwest.
Where have you read that? Hanauer's "plans" are from 3-4 years ago, and since Atletico Seattle lost out to the Hanauer/Roth/Allen group, their plans go out the door with them. Plus, since there is ZERO percent chance of ANY public funding, the owners would have to foot the bill entirely. With the cost of land around here, we're talking a minimum of $200mil+. Why would ANYONE spend that kind of money on a stadium, when there's already one built that meets their needs?
If we're in "Wave a magic wand and everything you desire will come true" land, then sure, I think most everyone would like to redevelop Memorial into a top quality SSS. But we all know that isn't going to happen. Qwest is the only option. Period. Seattlites are not driving to the suburbs to watch soccer. Forget about it. Putting a team in Bellevue, Renton, Kent, Fife, whereever would be suicide. I'm sure everone who reads this will say "WRONG! I'd drive there for the game!" Of course you would. But you're the 5 percenters. An MLS team needs to draw from a wider audience, and that audience is not driving out of Seattle for a soccer game. And no new stadium will be built in Seattle. We all know that public funding is totally out of the question. I'll go one further, I don't think the city would even approve the construction of a 100% privately financed stadium. People in Seattle take NIMBYism to an amazing height. They will complain about parking; traffic; hooligans; using space that could go towards low income housing, parks, battered pet shelters, etc. Look at the way people in Montlake freak out when the Huskies want to do anything other than play at 12:30. Look at the way people in Rainier Valley freak out when first you don't want to built a light rail line there, and then later when you concede and decide to actually build a light rail line there. Look at the way people freaked out over the Seattle Commons. Where exactly would this new SSS be built? Nowhere, that's where. It's Qwest. Period. And it's a damn fine solution, too.
My opinion on the matter is this: Qwest Field is in an ideal location for me. It is far, far easier to get to Qwest than it is for me to get to the suburbs. I don't think Qwest field will have any problems with fan atmosphere, but I'm more interested in the product on the field than what the fans are doing. I'm not an atmosphere whore (atmoswhore?). An SSS might be nice, but not if it's in the suburbs. I really don't want to drive that far (with Qwest, I don't even have to drive). In conclusion, if I hear somebody use the word "cavernous" to describe NFL stadiums one more time, I'm going to smack that person with a fir tree.
Nail-on-the-head! For the record I voted for a SSS in the city limits, (since this was a hypothetical question). But, I am perfectly happy with going to Qwest; it's a beautiful stadium and the location cannot be beat. If a SSS was built in the suburbs somewhere I would probably not get season tickets knowing that I just wouldn't be going to as many matches. I am totally fine with Qwest.
I think anything at the Memorial site would be better described as "not worth the hassle" rather than purely "out." Competing jurisdictions, small footprint, worse location than South Downtown, having to deal with Seattle Public Schools, having to wade into the Seattle Center quagmire eek... The quality of the 'Hawk's location is such an enormous advantage that if you wanted to draw anywhere near the numbers you'd get there you'd have to put it somewhere in the city or right on the border of the city with very good transportation links. After that, one of the suburbs around Lake Washington would be okay (despite complaints and the loss of a lot of people from the south end if you put it up north and a lot of people from the north if you put it down south) if the location was, once again, well-served by public transit. I'm not sure a lot of outsiders (even from places like BC and OR) realize how important public transit is for a lot of people in Seattle and the suburbs - despite the current lack of a light rail line - especially for getting to and from major sporting events. It's not like I've been on buses literally packed with M's and 'Hawks fans (with more left waiting at the curb) going to and from games from an Eastside P&R... All the other solutions are progressively worse and worse.
omg let the issue go. Paul Allen is investor in what looks like is going to be MLS Seattle, he owns a stadium that's where they will play.
If we are saying what we wish would happen even though we know it realistically won't... I want to see a grass field put in Qwest (realistic), and for the team to draw 60k + fans (not likely) a game at Qwest and a good quality player to fill the DP spot. And also for the Sounders to win the MLS cup their first year in the league... But unfortunately I misplaced my magic wand...
Many of you still tend to skip a lot of issues when speaking in favor of Qwest. Location wise it's obviously the best, and it's probably not possible to get an SSS in anywhere that can be remotely as good as that location. I also have yet to see a person argue that the stadium is not built to soccer standards, like having wider field margins. The stadium is built in such a way that even with 20,000+ people the atmosphere will still be good, provided the audience makes a lot of noise. The bigger issue with attendance is that there's is still doubt that even 20,000 people will show up, which is what the league ideally wants for every game. I'll be happy if an attendance of over 20,000 can be maintained. Of course, this attendance issue would occur even if an SSS were built. No, these issues I listed above aren't the biggest in regards to Qwest. It's the fact that it shares the stadium with the Seahawks, which for some reason gets glanced over too much in these arguments. Profitability is one issue in this respect. With Paul Allen on board, an MLS team most likely won't be charged anything to play in Qwest, and this tends to be the biggest issue when speaking of profitability. If there's good marketing for the team and there's a solid 20,000 or so attendance per game then this won't be an issue. But scheduling problems with the Seahawks can be a big issue. MLS always has to fix up playoff schedules partially depending on which teams make the playoffs and whether or not a day will conflict with an NFL team who plays in the same stadium as an MLS playoff team. This is extremely annoying and certainly hurts the MLS attempts to maximize the profitability of the playoffs. Paul Allen has the power to minimize this problem, but we have yet to see how agreeable he is with the MLS. And now I come to the dreaded NFL lines. These are just utterly horrible, and Qwest will receive mass league wide hatred (much more than there is now) if there's even one game with these lines painted on. These are utterly distracting to both players and fans, not to mention leaving the MLS team having to deal with this with a great feeling of subordination to the NFL. This is a big reason, if not the biggest reason, why most fans are desperate to leave football stadiums. I don't know how this issue will be resolved in games near the end of the season and the playoffs (which I'm sure many of you are hoping the Seattle MLS team will reach). If Paul Allen manages to somehow fix this, then everyone will be happy, but there's very reasonable doubt that this will happen. Even the Dynamo and the Revs, which are fairly comfortable in their stadiums, are feeling considerable pressure to move into their specific stadium. With the knowledge that Qwest will be the permanent home, there will be a specific hatred towards Qwest should those lines make an appearance in a match.
How much more did you hate Dallas, or Columbus, or LA earlier this season when lines were clearly evident on their SSS pitches?
Exactly my point. I've seen the "Soccer is no longer in the shadows" Dicks Sporting Goods Park commercial as often as the next fan. Completely brainwashed, that's what the SSS-ophiles have become. Anything inside an SSS is passable, while the same in a non-SSS is wailed about.
evangel is correct that NFL lines is an issue. As is playing on an artificial surface. These are negatives with regards to Qwest. But nobody has claimed that Qwest is perfect, only that it is better than the alternatives. I stand by that claim.
You're right, I was really angry at those games as well, but the point is that I want the league to eventually reach a time when these lines are never seen again. Easier said than done, of course, but when the league starts to reach profitability there should be a point when teams can actively deny high school football teams or anyone else to rent the stadium if they are going harm the field in any way. Even though you'd be correct in saying that was really no need to allow football to be played in these stadiums, I'll give the league maybe a few more seasons to correct these stupid problems. Unfortunately, LA is a whole other issue, since they are located on some space belonging to Cal State University, and that brings other annoying problems as evidenced in the Superliga final.
In a perfect world that would happen. But it is painfully obvious that even the SSS will ALWAYS have to rely on revenue from alternate sources such as High School/college football in order to make money. That's where the moniker of "Soccer Specific" is really just a load of shit. We live in the US where American football is a fact of life. Either arrange the season to miss the football season completely or else learn to deal with it.