I mean, the Jets are an established team in the most popular league in the country, and they've been sharing a stadium out of state with another team for how many years? I see MLS getting slighted and taken for granted. This just doesn't seem like a particularly galling example to me.
The ugliness of retractable roofs is they are usually gargantuan, unnecessary structures that dwarf the stadium itself even when open. The plans for the Mets new stadium (http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Bleachers/9208/Sports/stadium/nshea2.jpg) look ugly as fcck. I have yet to view a retractable stadium that doesn't look like crap - if you know of one, please point it out. Not to mention the extra unnecessary expense. For soccer or football, there is absolutely no need for a retractable dome. And for baseball, a few rainouts per year doesn't make it a necessity either. Whoever said the real reason for a roof was an attempt to get the Super Bowl was on point. God knows why they can't play the Super Bowl in snow or rain. And anyone who thinks Anschutz has the $$$ to buy prime real estate on the West Side to build a SSS is out of their minds. Harrison is good enough, thank you. Close to mass transit, good size, decent design. Just build it already.
Re: Re: Jets get new stadium Yeah, there are several. One of my favorites is Amsterdamn Arena.... http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/netherlands/amsterdam_arena1.jpg http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/netherlands/amsterdam_arena2.jpg
Re: Re: Re: Jets get new stadium IMO, even Amsterdam Arena would look better without that huge overbearing roof and retractable dome. However, it does do a very good job at "hiding" the roof when it is not in use, and the scale is less gargatuan than most American retractable domes. It's just a question of necessity, really. I suppose a retractable dome increases a stadium's versatility as it can be used for conventions, concerts, etc, in any weather. But in most cases it strikes me as completely unnecessary and gratuitous for cities in moderate climates. I hope it's a phase in stadium architecture that will soon come to pass.
As the ESPN article pointed out, Woody Johnson is heir to the Johnson and Johnson fortune. Johnson and Johnson were one of the two national sponsors of WUSA, and the family are reputedly big soccer fans. I'd be surprised if the stadium doesn't have at least 110x72 dimensions. Not ideal for soccer (give me 120x80 any day), but good enough. If this thing gets build you can be pretty sure MLS will find a way to be there - and though I'm generally against MLS clubs playing in gridiron stadiums, I think this one could work because of its location and ease of access to a huge population.
Can soccer and football play in the rain, of course, but so you want to tell me that the games we had this spring whould have been anything other than a joke on grass. Think about it, everyone wouldn't be hiding under the mezzanine. However, I agree Harrison is good enough.
This will be the perfect home for the NY COSMOS. American football will eventually lose all it's popularity and New York will be left with a perfect stadium for SOCCER!!!!
Wouldn't that be fantastic? The New York Cosmos playing the Metrostars in the Hudson River Derby. Freken awesome.... oh well.... back to the Newcastle Brown Ale....
I dont see howyou could possibly compare the Jets and the Metro. Surely you have to know it all comes down to money, and the Metro are small change compared to the Jets in terms of revenue.
I have no idea what you're trying to prove with your question, but I'll be nice and answer it. According to an old, beat-up copy of the Collegiate Dictionary I have in my desk, one of the definitions of a "bandbox" is: "A structure (as a baseball park) having relatively small interior dimensions."
When you look at the rendering of the new Jets stadium doesn't strike you right away "Where the fu(k am I going to get polluted and eat Kielbasa before the game?" There is no area to tailgate. And don't tell me to goto a restaurant around the stadium. Tailgating is part of the ritual that is sunday football.
Right. And regardless of whether MLS ever plays there, should the stadium come to pass, I've got to give a thumbs down to a 70,000 seat stadium in lower Manhattan. What a cluster *#*#*#*# that is going to be. Like Manhattan isn't congested enough. It's great that people will have easy access to the stadium from the city, but there are a hell of a lot of people that go to see the Jets and what all that aren't from the city. Nice. It'll be fun for those people to pay $40 for parking before the hour and a half line to get into the tunnel when the game's over.
Well if they don't want to pay $40 to park they could always park over in Jersey and take the train over.......you know like thousands of commuters do every single day. I would think the number of people coming to Manhattan on Sunday for a Jets game is absolutely dwarfed by the millions that converge on the city daily for work. I think they can handle the traffic.
This is one thing that also concerns me about Harrison. There seems to be talk of of parking garage, or deck. Also, based on the specs I saw last spring, there will be less parking spaces per seat than there are at GS. If you have been there when the place is sold out, not good.
What if a Jet Fan is going to the Game from points East or North, they have to go into New Jersey even though there stadium is now in New York? Then after the game they have to leave NY to go back to Nj just to go back to NY, that doesn't sound pratical.
If you want MLS soccer and international soccer games at the new stadium provided it is built, email the NYC Sports Commissioner's office http://www.nyc.gov/html/mail/html/mailsports.html