Interesting. I still think Soldier Field, a big down town stadium regularly used soccer, in a northern not too hot city, the 3rd biggest city in the country, in a region under represented in the WC Good question.
Not many. Denver probably lost out because they weren't willing to give tax breaks. But FIFA aren't clear about what the financial commitments of chosen cities will be plus they insist on signing contracts under Swiss Law.
This is straying the MLS stadium thread, but, yes, Denver would have been great too. The NFL stadium is decent for soccer, near downtown (walkable) and some public transportation. Good summer weather. And, most importantly, close and with convenient public transport to my home.
The Bears said today they weren't interested in Soldier Field at the moment as they had an exclusive negotiating window in Arlington Heights.
lol. I supposed "perfect" for me would have been to convert the U of Colorado's Folsom Field in Boulder to be wide enough to fit a soccer field, but that would destroy part of what makes it great for stadium for college football (it is so narrow, the benches barely fit); so I think a Boulder, Colorado World Cup was out of the cards. Denver better, but no. Shame. lol
I've heard it mentioned that DC United is putting a roof on its stadium. Does this mean it's going to be completely covered, or will it just cover the seated areas for the fans? Thanks in advance for answering my query!
I want someone to ask Bruce for more details about this Boston stadium. I wonder how he sees his legacy with the Revs. He's getting up there, but still has been very good with talent eval (barring his massive blind spot for his "guys" ) and coaching up young players. I wonder how his role evolves in the next 3-4 years.
St. Louis looks nice. That is a welcome addition next year. I saw a blurb on wiki that Freedom Park construction in Miami is supposed to start this year. Is that accurate? I thought they were still mired in a holding pattern.
Some potential info about a Revs stadium in Boston area???? https://www.casino.org/news/encore-boston-harbor-could-soon-have-mls-soccer-stadium-as-neighbor/
I could see Wynn (Encore) Resorts pushing this stadium along since it would increase their hotel bookings and foot traffic. I’m hoping they can get this done. It would be a game changer for the Rev’s. They have a beautiful new logo and ownership trying… actually
Two things: 1) If this location gets done, the Revs will need way more than 15k seats. It's in the dead center of Boston, almost. I suspect all their current fans will still come to games, plus all of those who think Gillette is too far away. 2) It looks like almost a mile to the nearest public transportation. I wonder how much land they'll need to convert to parking to make that work. Or could they put in a transit stop closer? Plenty of places in MLS have zero public transportation, so it's not the biggest deal in the world, but Boston seems like the kind of place where people take the train a lot.
So, of 29 in. SSS with grass = 21. Columbus (SSS #2), LAG, FCD, TFC, Colorado, RSL, NYRB, Philly, SKC, Houston, Montreal, SJ, Orlando, DCU, LAFC, Minny, Miami (done in Ft.L, green lit it Miami), Austin, Cincy, Nashville, St. Louis. SSS with turf = 1. Portland. Would love to see grass in Portland but do not know if it is feasible. Ownership seems amenable. Non SSS with grass = 2. Chicago, NYCFC. The Fire back in Chicago was needed and at least Soldier Field is grass. Citeh are continuing to look in NY. Non SSS with turf = 5. NE, Seattle, Vancouver, Atlanta, Charlotte. That article looks fairly promising for NE. All the originals have SSS w/grass save the Revs. And it would be great for them to be in Boston and get out of this tier of stadia. Unless Vancouver is looking, the others will remain turfball in NFL/CFL stadia.
As with everything.. Given enough time and money, anything is possible. I know Paulson keeps saying he'll put grass in, but it is really something that is on par with NER getting a SSS in Boston. Paulson also doesn't want to pay for it himself and the City of Portland isn't about to pay to install grass as it will do nothing to increase revenue in the stadium...
The proposed development site in neighboring Everett, Massachusetts is 5 miles - as the crow flies - from the geographic "dead center of Boston". As for access to the site via public transit, he two nearest extant stations are anywhere from a mile to a mile-and-a-half from the proposed development site... once again, as the crow flies. On foot or via ground transportation, the distance is going to be longer than that. As for converting land surrounding the stadium to parking in order to accommodate supporters driving to matches, getting in and out of said area in a car would be an absolute nightmare. It already is... and encouraging any sizable contingent of people to descend upon the neighborhood en masse in cars in order to attend a sporting event would only add to the congestion. There are a lot of questions - many of them having to do with addressing the issue of conveniently moving masses of people to and from such a facility - that have yet to be answered about just how realistic a proposition the development of a soccer-specific stadium at said site happens to be.
I have no clue about the actual situation there, so this is probably stupid but I'm going to say it anyway. These remind me of all the concerns that were brought up about Austin building their stadium where they did. I have no idea how it's actually turned out, but somehow it seems to be working. So maybe, despite all the possible problems, it will end up working out for the Revs...?
I think the proximity to all that water makes the environmental stuff a bit more concerning here, but agree overall.
They have lots of Big Dig experience, sure.... at corruption making the costs astronomical, and incompetence in making the results dangerous.