NYC 2024 or 2028

[Quaker2001]

3 hours ago, Nacre said:

New York is actually the most underserved metro area for sports franchises in the USA on a per capita basis. If they built a smaller version of Stade de France that could be expanded in a reverse of London's original plan, then that could work for Manchester City B/NYCFC.

The real problem in New York is land, which is why the NFL teams play in New Jersey along with the NY Red Bulls, and why NYCFC plays in a baseball stadium with no current plan for their own stadium.

Never thought of NYC as under-served.  Obviously if we're talking about per capita, that has to take into account that the NYC metro area is 50% larger than the #2 city (LA), twice as large as the #3 city (Chicago), and 3 times the size of the #4 city (Dallas).  Can't reasonably expect NYC to have 3 times as many stadiums as Dallas.  Remember also that the NYC area isn't big on major colleges.  So that hurts the cause for sports facilities as well.

That said, look at the stadiums that the NY metro area does have.  2 baseball stadiums less than a decade old (plus a number of minor league stadiums in the area, including 2 within city limits that both seat around 7,000).  Only the 1 football stadium, but not like we need 2.  3 major arenas, 2 of which are new and a 3rd which just got a complete overhaul.  Red Bull Arena as you mentioned, also less than a decade old.  So what NYC may lack in volume (and again, that's only relative to sheer size of the city), we make up for in that a city probably hasn't built this many stadiums/arenas in such a short amount of time that wasn't tied to the Olympics.  That's why the thinking remains that around 2012 was the perfect time for a NY Olympic bid.  Too bad the timing on the part of the IOC didn't fit.  And yes, I will continue to blame Atlanta for that.

[TeamBlakeUSA]

Quote

 

We'll Have To Wait And See.

[Nacre]

6 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Never thought of NYC as under-served.  Obviously if we're talking about per capita, that has to take into account that the NYC metro area is 50% larger than the #2 city (LA), twice as large as the #3 city (Chicago), and 3 times the size of the #4 city (Dallas).  Can't reasonably expect NYC to have 3 times as many stadiums as Dallas.  Remember also that the NYC area isn't big on major colleges.  So that hurts the cause for sports facilities as well.

I certainly don't think New York needs more stadiums. Beyond the other issues, the city's entertainment sector is built first and foremost around its theatrical heritage. (Seattle is also underserved, and has the highest per capita attendance for ballet and opera in the USA. We don't need the Sonics back.) People with disposable income can find something else to spend their money on.

But the NY market could easily accommodate another stadium and/or an expansion franchise if someone built one. The Knicks are one of the worst managed sports teams in the world, and they still have the highest average ticket price in the NBA simply because they play in Manhattan. A 50,000 seat stadium (with temporary expansion to 90,000 for the games) in Manhattan for NYCFC would do well. The difficulty is in finding the land for it.

[zekekelso]

7 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

That's why the thinking remains that around 2012 was the perfect time for a NY Olympic bid.  Too bad the timing on the part of the IOC didn't fit.  And yes, I will continue to blame Atlanta for that.

You are placing way too much importance on "need for the local team to build a stadium" as part of the bid. First of all, the main stadium is only one part of the bid. Sure it was a weakness in the NY bid, but it was far from the only weakness. NYC didn't lose because it was too close in time to Atlanta. Then there's your focus on stadium building for local teams. So the Mets and Yankees got new stadiums. What's that got to do with the Olympics. Neither was going to build something that would host the Olympics. 

The eventually winner for 2012 was London. They sure as hell didn't need a new stadium. But they build one just for the Olympics. That's the attitude the IOC was looking for. Not "Oh, we can squeeze you into our existing plans."

Other than Atlanta, when's the last time a city built their Olympic stadium because they needed a stadium for local sports teams?

[zekekelso]

50 minutes ago, Nacre said:

 

 A 50,000 seat stadium (with temporary expansion to 90,000 for the games) in Manhattan for NYCFC would do well. The difficulty is in finding the land for it.

There's a big chunk of wasted land in the center of Manhattan, north of 59th street. Could they put it there?

[Rob2012]

5 hours ago, zekekelso said:

The eventually winner for 2012 was London. They sure as hell didn't need a new stadium. But they build one just for the Olympics.

Depends what you mean by "need", "stadium" and "London".

And I'm not even joking.

Most of London's football clubs are building anew or expanding their stadium at the moment, and our four major clubs will soon all be playing in different, significantly bigger stadiums from the ones they started the 21st century in. Similarly athletics really did "need" something better and better located than Crystal Palace. So the demand for new stadiums in recent times in London has been enormous (I haven't even mentioned the National Stadium at Wembley opening in 2007).

But did we "need" the type of "stadium" we built for 2012? Again depends on your pov....

The difficulty, as with NYC, is the balance between public/private, not distorting the market, fitting it into a larger regeneration scheme, how to build the stadium and for who etc. We as a nation are generally more sympathetic with public money going towards national projects (and our Olympic team and their facilities count as a national project) than to already rich football clubs. And giving one football club a boost via a publically funded facility was never going to - and didn't - sit well with most who don't support that club. Then again, "London" - as a municipal government with its own budget - doesn't "need" to fund athletics even if athletics "needed" a new stadium!

Do US cities "need" to build stadiums using public funds for billionaire-owned NFL franchises, or do they choose to? In the end I feel it comes down to where public sympathies lie, because you can probably make the case both ways. I don't think most (certainly pre-recession), had much of a problem with London sustaining a small athletics stadium in Stratford, and the "need" from athletics' point of view was certainly there for it.

If things are this complex in London, I can only imagine how fun the conversation would be in NYC. That was a longer post than I intended!!

Edited September 17, 2016 by Rob.

[zekekelso]

One of the ways billionaires extort taxpayer money is by threatening to leave. Does that threat exist in England? Could Manchester United pull up stakes and become Plymouth United? 

[Quaker2001]

18 hours ago, Nacre said:

I certainly don't think New York needs more stadiums. Beyond the other issues, the city's entertainment sector is built first and foremost around its theatrical heritage. (Seattle is also underserved, and has the highest per capita attendance for ballet and opera in the USA. We don't need the Sonics back.) People with disposable income can find something else to spend their money on.

But the NY market could easily accommodate another stadium and/or an expansion franchise if someone built one. The Knicks are one of the worst managed sports teams in the world, and they still have the highest average ticket price in the NBA simply because they play in Manhattan. A 50,000 seat stadium (with temporary expansion to 90,000 for the games) in Manhattan for NYCFC would do well. The difficulty is in finding the land for it.

Easier said than done to build up support.  Takes more than just a stadium.  The Knicks have the benefit of decades of history behind them to help sell tickets.  It's not only the location that allows them charge those prices.  Plus, soccer is not the same as basketball.  NYCFC usually only draws in the mid-20,000 range for their games.  Only the games against NYRB hit capacity.  They don't need a 50,000 seat stadium.  They're not likely to fill that except for certain games.  The argument that New York can handle more teams simply because of the size of the population ignores the issues of trying to fight for market share and the business sense of building another venue.  Look at the Yankees that they built their new stadium which hosts no less than 81 events a year and they still have additional tenants to generate more revenue.  Far from a guarantee a medium to large scale stadium in Manhattan (when there are already several stadiums in the area) would do well, even if there was a place to build it.

[Quaker2001]

20 hours ago, zekekelso said:

You are placing way too much importance on "need for the local team to build a stadium" as part of the bid. First of all, the main stadium is only one part of the bid. Sure it was a weakness in the NY bid, but it was far from the only weakness. NYC didn't lose because it was too close in time to Atlanta. Then there's your focus on stadium building for local teams. So the Mets and Yankees got new stadiums. What's that got to do with the Olympics. Neither was going to build something that would host the Olympics. 

The eventually winner for 2012 was London. They sure as hell didn't need a new stadium. But they build one just for the Olympics. That's the attitude the IOC was looking for. Not "Oh, we can squeeze you into our existing plans."

Other than Atlanta, when's the last time a city built their Olympic stadium because they needed a stadium for local sports teams?

You were saying?  Obviously I'm aware that was a hastily put together plan B after plan A fell apart on them.  Yet this is what they came up with.  And there are certainly plenty of similarities between that and the actual design of Citi Field.  NYC didn't fail to land an Olympics solely because of Atlanta, but it didn't help.  Atlanta got lucky in that they happened to be interested in building 2 new stadiums around the time of their Olympic bid.  If not for that, how appealing is an Olympics in Atlanta?  If they don't get it, it doesn't make NYC's bid necessarily any stronger, but the timing is helped immensely, especially if they had a window of more than 1 bid cycle to take a shot at it.  2008 may have been a better shot than 2012 and look what they went up against then.  So yea, NYC 2012 looks that much worse that it came against London and Paris and what was a technically strong bid from Madrid.

If a city, particularly a US city, is going to bid for an Olympics, there's 1 of 3 ways they can go at it (not just for the main stadium but for other big ticket items like the athletes village).  1 is to use existing facilities (as LA is doing).  2 is to use temporary facilities (as Chicago proposed.. how much better is their bid if they could have timed it with the renovations to Solider Field rather than to offer a pop-up stadium with no legacy.  And 3 is build something new.  As we saw with London, that stadium wasn't built out of need, but they kinda punted on the legacy plans hoping something would come together.  Little chance that happens here.  U.S. cities don't have the luxury of a Beijing or a Tokyo or a Sydney (which does have full-time tenants, to answer that last question) to built a "national" stadium that doesn't necessarily have a well-defined future.  Housing wouldn't be an issue here because saturating the market with new buildings happens all the time here, so that's something NYC could handle better than most cities.  But the stadium still is an issue and remains 1 of the key points (among others) that is likely to prevent an NYC Olympic bid from materializing anytime soon.

[zekekelso]

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

  2 is to use temporary facilities (as Chicago proposed.. how much better is their bid if they could have timed it with the renovations to Solider Field rather than to offer a pop-up stadium with no legacy.  And 3 is build something new.  As we saw with London, that stadium wasn't built out of need, but they kinda punted on the legacy plans hoping something would come together.  Little chance that happens here.  U.S. cities don't have the luxury of a Beijing or a Tokyo or a Sydney (which does have full-time tenants, to answer that last question) to built a "national" stadium that doesn't necessarily have a well-defined future.  Housing wouldn't be an issue here because saturating the market with new buildings happens all the time here, so that's something NYC could handle better than most cities.  But the stadium still is an issue and remains 1 of the key points (among others) that is likely to prevent an NYC Olympic bid from materializing anytime soon.

Your first point up there drives me nuts. Spending $$$ to turn Soldier Field into a track and field stadium, and then spending $$$ truing it back into a  NFL stadium is, IMO, the waste. The city was going to upgrade Soldier Field without the Olympics, or with the Olympics. Where's the legacy? With the temporary stadium, at least they were going to leave behind a small track and field stadium. 

As for the second point, the US is the richest, most powerful nation on earth. If Australia (no offense guys, but come 'on.. Australia) can build a stadium it doesn't need, if London and Japan and China can do it, we can do it. We *choose* not to do it. Which is probably the smarter choice. 

[Quaker2001]

22 minutes ago, zekekelso said:

Your first point up there drives me nuts. Spending $$$ to turn Soldier Field into a track and field stadium, and then spending $$$ truing it back into a  NFL stadium is, IMO, the waste. The city was going to upgrade Soldier Field without the Olympics, or with the Olympics. Where's the legacy? With the temporary stadium, at least they were going to leave behind a small track and field stadium. 

As opposed to spending money to build a temporary stadium and then spending more money to turn it into whatever it was going to serve as, all at the expense of a historic park.  How did Chicago finish in the voting again? (keeping in mind you've already me I shouldn't mention how close in time to Atlanta it was.. yes, I know the revenue deal is also what sunk them.

The funny thing about Soldier Field is that it actually got de-listed from the national register of historic places after the replacement.  The original stadium didn't get turned into anything.  It was completely demolished (only with some of the elements of the shell still standing, which is a joke) and rebuilt.  Wouldn't it have been convenient to tie those upgrades into the usage for an Olympic stadium rather than on a temporary stadium, and then that rebuilt Soldier Field, once a historic landmark, would have stood as the IOC's legacy.  As opposed to a small track and field stadium which is something the city probably neither needed nor had much of a use for.

36 minutes ago, zekekelso said:

As for the second point, the US is the richest, most powerful nation on earth. If Australia (no offense guys, but come 'on.. Australia) can build a stadium it doesn't need, if London and Japan and China can do it, we can do it. We *choose* not to do it. Which is probably the smarter choice. 

Why is the knock on Australia, a country with a per-capita income not too far below that of the United States?  At least they built a stadium with some purpose that they're actually getting use out of.  Did they *need* it?  No.  But at least it serves a purpose.  As opposed to London, who rebuilt their national stadium and then built something brand new for an Olympic bid with little legacy planning for it post-Olympics.  Talk about something that wasn't needed.  You hit on it earlier.. most new stadium construction in the United States is less about need and more about the thinly-veiled threat of a team skipping town.  That and giant egos for these NFL owners to try and one-up each other and attract big events to their new building.  Yea, you're right that NYC chooses not to build a wasteful stadium when the city has seen the construction of billions of dollars worth of sports stadiums/arenas in the past decade that actually had a reason to be built.  And since none of them can host track & field, that remains a problem that *choice* will continue to prevent, yes because it is smart and because most people with money generally don't get there by making stupid decisions.. the troll doll we have as a republican nominee for president notwithstanding.

[zekekelso]

I have much love for Australia. Great nation in so many ways. But despite a high per capita GDP, their total GDP is less than 10% of the US. (See also, Canada).

The point is that if Australia - with GDP a small fraction of the US's - can build a stadium primarily for the Olympics, the US sure as heck can. The notion that we are stuck, that we can only build one if it happens to coincide with an existing pro-team expansion is just nuts. Just build it, then after the Olympics offer it up to the whatever NFL team is looking for a home. Better yet, use it the way Wembley is used... as a site for "big events." Put two or three neutral site college football rivalries there. A bowl game. The USMNT. Monster Truck shows(1). Whatever. 

Now this may be a dumb move financially, and a waste of taxpayer money. But we certainly could do it. As a country, we can easily afford it. Heck, we've got high schools in Texas competing to see who can spend the most on a football stadium. One spent $60m, so their rival spent $70m. High Schools! Getting back to Australia for second... not only can we afford it, but we can more easily afford it than every other nation on earth. 

New York didn't have some tiny window that closed. Anytime they want they can jump in and bid. But every four years New York chooses not to waste money on such a thing and loses to some city that is. 

[mr.bernham]

27 minutes ago, zekekelso said:

I have much love for Australia. Great nation in so many ways. But despite a high per capita GDP, their total GDP is less than 10% of the US. (See also, Canada).

The point is that if Australia - with GDP a small fraction of the US's - can build a stadium primarily for the Olympics, the US sure as heck can. The notion that we are stuck, that we can only build one if it happens to coincide with an existing pro-team expansion is just nuts. Just build it, then after the Olympics offer it up to the whatever NFL team is looking for a home. Better yet, use it the way Wembley is used... as a site for "big events." Put two or three neutral site college football rivalries there. A bowl game. The USMNT. Monster Truck shows(1). Whatever. 

Now this may be a dumb move financially, and a waste of taxpayer money. But we certainly could do it. As a country, we can easily afford it. Heck, we've got high schools in Texas competing to see who can spend the most on a football stadium. One spent $60m, so their rival spent $70m. High Schools! Getting back to Australia for second... not only can we afford it, but we can more easily afford it than every other nation on earth. 

New York didn't have some tiny window that closed. Anytime they want they can jump in and bid. But every four years New York chooses not to waste money on such a thing and loses to some city that is. 

Question is...is it really worth it? The US can still host the Olympics AND not waste billions of dollars. That alone makes me more proud than wasting money on a two week extravaganza and then being criticized years later for letting facilities go to waste would. 

Other nations literally suck so much that they have to waste money to host. America is so freaking awesome that we can host the Olympics without wasting billions. 

[mr.bernham]

Also, in case you don't have a humor bone; I was being sarcastic in that last sentence.

[Quaker2001]

27 minutes ago, zekekelso said:

I have much love for Australia. Great nation in so many ways. But despite a high per capita GDP, their total GDP is less than 10% of the US. (See also, Canada).

The point is that if Australia - with GDP a small fraction of the US's - can build a stadium primarily for the Olympics, the US sure as heck can. The notion that we are stuck, that we can only build one if it happens to coincide with an existing pro-team expansion is just nuts. Just build it, then after the Olympics offer it up to the whatever NFL team is looking for a home. Better yet, use it the way Wembley is used... as a site for "big events." Put two or three neutral site college football rivalries there. A bowl game. The USMNT. Monster Truck shows(1). Whatever. 

Now this may be a dumb move financially, and a waste of taxpayer money. But we certainly could do it. As a country, we can easily afford it. Heck, we've got high schools in Texas competing to see who can spend the most on a football stadium. One spent $60m, so their rival spent $70m. High Schools! Getting back to Australia for second... not only can we afford it, but we can more easily afford it than every other nation on earth. 

New York didn't have some tiny window that closed. Anytime they want they can jump in and bid. But every four years New York chooses not to waste money on such a thing and loses to some city that is. 

Just build it?  Shoot, why didn't I think of that.  And use it for "whatever."  Make stadiums great again!  I do love the irony here that you keep saying "we certainly could do it" because "we can easily afford it," yet 1 of your favorite refrains in the LA thread is "how will they pay for it?"

You know what drives me nuts?  Referring to a city as "they."  New York is not a group of people or a business that has wants and desire.  It's an extremely complex structure with rules and oversight that mean it takes money than just money to get things done.  New York doesn't jump in and bid unless a person (or persons) within New York decides they want to jump in and that won't happen unless there's a plan to make it work.  In order for that to happen, that plan has to not be dumb.  Texas high schools decide to spend $60 million on a football stadium not because they have more money than they know what to do with and figure it would be a fun idea, but somehow that it might be a wise thing to do financially.  The precursor for an Olympic bid from a city like New York (or any other city for that matter) is a sensible plan.  In that regard, you know as well as I do that the financial and political part of the bid will always be different here than in other countries.  If we can so easily afford it, why have no less than 3 cities tried and failed?  Because it doesn't work.  It's a big reason why there hasn't been pro football in LA for the past 2 decades and now there is.  Why?  Because someone had a plan to make it work and also happened to own a professional football team.  No city is going to "just build it" and offer it up to an NFL team.  That's not how things work.  Just because there is money and logistics that fanatics like us on the internet can dream up does not mean these things will work in the real world.  Could they?  Yes.  Would they.  Not really.

[Rob2012]

18 hours ago, zekekelso said:

One of the ways billionaires extort taxpayer money is by threatening to leave. Does that threat exist in England? Could Manchester United pull up stakes and become Plymouth United? 

Haha, no! The most famous case of a team moving a long way was Wimbledon's owners moving the club from south London to Milton Keynes 15 years ago. But that caused a huge amount of uproar. The fans of Wimbledon set up their own club in the aftermath which started in something like the 10th tier of English football and has been promoted several times since. This season the fan-founded AFC Wimbledon is playing in the same league as the relocated Milton Keynes team for the first time (in the 3rd tier of English football).

It's not unknown for local authorities to have stakes in stadiums - I think Hull's stadium was built and is owned by the city - but it's very much the exception. So not only is the notion of a team moving a foreign idea to us, the idea of a city paying for a team's stadium is too. So there's no leeway for that kind of threat from clubs.

Of course, we'll happily build an Olympic or Commonwealth Stadium using public funds, but as I said, I think that's because we're generally ok with spending on "national" projects. However it's marketed and presented I'm not sure an Olympics could ever really be "national" project in the same way in the States. It's a nice idea though - just $3 from every citizen and you've got yourselves a stadium! Embrace socialism guys, and you've got the biggest and best Games ever!

[zekekelso]

17 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Just build it?  Shoot, why didn't I think of that.  And use it for "whatever."  Make stadiums great again!  I do love the irony here that you keep saying "we certainly could do it" because "we can easily afford it," yet 1 of your favorite refrains in the LA thread is "how will they pay for it?"

 

The "just built it" plan words for most successful bids... as long come up with enough of a story to make the IOC members feel good about themselves. 

As for the irony... my point isn't that it would be hard for LA to pay for the Olympics. If Santa Clara (25th largest city in California) can come up with $850 million for Levi's stadium, I'm sure LA can get the money. My point is that LA *hasn't* come up with the money yet. 

[Nacre]

On September 17, 2016 at 7:36 AM, zekekelso said:

One of the ways billionaires extort taxpayer money is by threatening to leave. Does that threat exist in England? Could Manchester United pull up stakes and become Plymouth United? 

Yes and no. Teams can relocate, but European soccer/football leagues follow a system where teams can be added (and lost) to the league every year. In the European system, if a team like the Vikings threatened to move from Minneapolis to Los Angeles the city would not give them $1 billion for a new stadium because Minnesota fans could switch their allegiance to another team in the area.

I mentioned it before, but if you look at the total public spending on stadiums of third rate cities like Seattle, Minneapolis and Denver it is more than the capital cost of the Olympics. Seattle spent $750 million (in today's dollars) of public money on its baseball stadium alone. (The Birds Nest only cost $500 million.) Stupid Mariners!!!

In a perfect world, Seattle would have built something like Stade de France to replace Husky Stadium. Then it would have an Olympic capable stadium with two wealthy anchor tenants. (The NFL and the University of Washington.) Instead we have two 70,000 seat football stadiums and a 47,500 seat baseball stadium for a city the size of Liverpool.

The idea that American cities are somehow more sober in spending money on sports venues than European cities is ludicrous. We just waste money in different ways.

Anyway, New York itself does not waste money on sports venues. It is the lesser cities in the USA that give in to the extortion attempts of our domestic sports leagues.

Edited September 19, 2016 by Nacre

[Quaker2001]

5 hours ago, zekekelso said:

The "just built it" plan words for most successful bids... as long come up with enough of a story to make the IOC members feel good about themselves. 

And how about the unsuccessful bids?  Was that their mistake that they didn't just say "fuk it, just build it, even those it's stupid and makes no sense"?  Seems that philosophy has scared off a lot of cities that they can't find a balance between just building it and actually doing right by their city.

5 hours ago, zekekelso said:

As for the irony... my point isn't that it would be hard for LA to pay for the Olympics. If Santa Clara (25th largest city in California) can come up with $850 million for Levi's stadium, I'm sure LA can get the money. My point is that LA *hasn't* come up with the money yet. 

Considering they haven't actually been awarded the Olympics, they don't actually need the money yet.  But if it's so easy to come up with, I guess that shouldn't be a problem.  

[Quaker2001]

1 hour ago, Nacre said:

Yes and no. Teams can relocate, but European soccer/football leagues follow a system where teams can be added (and lost) to the league every year. In the European system, if a team like the Vikings threatened to move from Minneapolis to Los Angeles the city would not give them $1 billion for a new stadium because Minnesota fans could switch their allegiance to another team in the area.

I mentioned it before, but if you look at the total public spending on stadiums of third rate cities like Seattle, Minneapolis and Denver it is more than the capital cost of the Olympics. Seattle spent $750 million (in today's dollars) of public money on its baseball stadium alone. (The Birds Nest only cost $500 million.) Stupid Mariners!!!

In a perfect world, Seattle would have built something like Stade de France to replace Husky Stadium. Then it would have an Olympic capable stadium with two wealthy anchor tenants. (The NFL and the University of Washington.) Instead we have two 70,000 seat football stadiums and a 47,500 seat baseball stadium for a city the size of Liverpool.

The idea that American cities are somehow more sober in spending money on sports venues than European cities is ludicrous. We just waste money in different ways.

Anyway, New York itself does not waste money on sports venues. It is the lesser cities in the USA that give in to the extortion attempts of our domestic sports leagues.

So.. Seattle is a 3rd rate city (your words, not mine), but they should have an Olympic capable stadium?  I don't think there's much logic in that one.

Seattle spent public money on a baseball stadium because if they didn't, that baseball team was going to wind up somewhere else.  Not unlike the SuperSonics who actually did pull the trigger because they didn't want to play at Key Arena anymore.

Husky Stadium.  On the campus of the University of Washington.  Owned and operated by the University of Washington.  Renovations paid for by the University of Washington.  Would the Huskies be interested in sharing a stadium - especially if it was off-campus - with the Seahawks? (and don't forget the Sounders who are doing pretty well for themselves)  Would the Seahawks have left the Kingdome to play permanently in Husky Stadium?  The size of the city be damned, everyone has their own interests.  So what if per capita, there's more stadiums in Seattle than elsewhere.  How about Dallas with the Cotton Bowl and Jerry World (having replaced Texas Stadium)?  You mentioned Minneapolis where the University of Minnesota built their own stadium when the Vikings now have theirs.  So wasteful!

It's been established that building a stadium with public money rarely leads to the types of economic benefits that supposedly come along with it (although the theory in the NFL these days is build a new stadium, get a Super Bowl).  So yes it's wasteful, but at least those venues get put to use.  Safeco Field will get used a minimum of 81 times a year.  Could it have been built for less than $500+ million?  Probably.  But unlike many stadiums/cities, they did need to build it or the Mariners would have skipped town.  Good for Beijing and what they spent on the Bird's Nest.  How's that working out for them on a cost basis where it holds very few sporting events and is primarily a tourist attraction.

[Nacre]

11 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

So.. Seattle is a 3rd rate city (your words, not mine), but they should have an Olympic capable stadium?  I don't think there's much logic in that one.

It seems I am not making myself clear.

1) Seattle could have built a stadium for a combination of the NFL, college football, the IAAF Championships, the Pan-American Games, etc for less money than the cost of its two huge football stadiums. The reasons it did not do so were not financial, but rather all of the things you pointed out.

2) I am not arguing that Seattle either should or could host the Olympics. I am saying that even one of the lesser cities in the USA could clearly afford the sporting infrastructure for the Olympics if it really wanted to try for an Olympic bid. American cities simply prefer to spend the money on national rather than international sport.

It isn't the cost of the athletics stadium that is holding back a New York bid, but rather the sports and real estate market in New York.

Edited September 19, 2016 by Nacre

[stryker]

Husky Stadium was more or less completely torn down and rebuilt including the removal of the athletics track. College football is big business and there's practically an arms race to upgrade stadiums with state-of-the-art facilities and luxury suites. Texas A&M did the same thing with Kyle Field, TCU with Amon Carter Stadium. As for an Olympics, none of these schools would consider remodeling their stadium with an athletics track. In fact, a number of college stadiums including Darrell Royal Memorial Stadium in Austin and Ohio Stadium in Columbus, once had athletics tracks that were removed to improve sightlines. Stanford Stadium (San Francisco's proposed athletics stadium in their 2012 bid) was demolished and rebuilt at a much smaller capacity

New York just doesn't have the need for a high capacity stadium right now and it likely won't for decades. NYFC will eventually get their own stadium but the club is going to want one soccer specific, not one with an athletics track. Los Angeles is still the best bet for a SOGs because of the stadium issue. Beyond Los Angeles, it's difficult to find a major U.S. market that has a need for a new stadium as the NFL and MLB have just gone through a wave of new stadium construction. Dallas has the Cotton Bowl which was built in the same time period as the L.A. Coliseum and could accommodate a platform track. Miami has the University of Miami Hurricanes who've been without a home stadium since the demolition of the Orange Bowl and now play in the MIami Dolphins stadium which while newly renovated is still over 20 miles from the campus and the Hurricanes have indicated they'd like a facility closer to the campus in Coral Gables. The Hurricanes are probably the only major college football team in the U.S. that could fill a new 65-70,000 seat stadium. The Washington Redskins have indicated they want a new stadium back in the D.C. area (wasn't this the plan for Washington's 2016 bid) I'm not suggesting that the U.S should suddenly go with Dallas, Miami, or Washington based on the stadium issue alone , obviously there's other issues, but on the other hand, the albatross that is building an Olympic Stadium and having a solid legacy plan for it, make bids from cities like New York and Chicago nonstarters.

[Nacre]

1 hour ago, stryker said:

New York just doesn't have the need for a high capacity stadium right now and it likely won't for decades. NYFC will eventually get their own stadium but the club is going to want one soccer specific, not one with an athletics track. 

In fact Manchester City (which shares owners with NYCFC) plays in a stadium that was built for the 2002 Commonwealth Games.

Moreover New York could force them to accept a convertible stadium like Stade de France by denying them permitting for any other stadium option. Let them build a new convertible stadium in the park in Queens and New York would have its Olympic stadium. The problem is that the people of Queens don't want the park land taken away, and taking public land to give it to a private developer might be political suicide for whatever mayor proposed it.

As for Husky Stadium, I am already aware of that stuff. My point is in fact precisely that college football, the NFL, etc are big business. There is no shortage of capital for sports in the USA, either private or public.

The advantage European cities have over American cities is not a willingness to spend/waste money subsidizing sports. It is having government-run sports ministries that spend public money on national athletics stadiums, velodromes, etc instead of spending that money on domestic sports leagues.

Note that I am not criticizing countries/cities for either spending model. (Except Seattle's baseball palace.) I am just saying that it is silly to pretend that the USA is a virtuously thrifty country when our cities are giving billions and billions of dollars to private sports teams.

[zekekelso]

4 hours ago, stryker said:

but on the other hand, the albatross that is building an Olympic Stadium and having a solid legacy plan for it, make bids from cities like New York and Chicago nonstarters.

First of all, just a reminder that LA, like every big city in the US, doesn't have an Olympic track and field stadium. It's going to take a whole lot of money to turn it into an Olympic stadium. Money that is almost entirely wasted as you then have to spend even more money turning it back. IF LA can spend all that money on something that won't turn into a NFL or MLB stadium, why can't Chicago or New York.

The city of Santa Clara (not even the county, the city) spent $850 million on a stadium whose tenant has ten events a year. I'm sure New York or Chicago could come up with that kind of money for an Olympic stadium and find uses for it ten nights a year. 

[Quaker2001]

2 hours ago, zekekelso said:

First of all, just a reminder that LA, like every big city in the US, doesn't have an Olympic track and field stadium. It's going to take a whole lot of money to turn it into an Olympic stadium. Money that is almost entirely wasted as you then have to spend even more money turning it back. IF LA can spend all that money on something that won't turn into a NFL or MLB stadium, why can't Chicago or New York.

Because LA has a stadium that was built for track & field and the original shell of the stadium is still there.  New York and Chicago do not.  So LA does have a building that could be transformed for track and field.  New York and Chicago do not.  Ironically, Chicago kinda did have that with Soldier Field, but they decided to demolish the stadium and replace it with something new.  Semantics here, but let's all define the difference between "can't" and "won't" and how we're defining those terms.

2 hours ago, zekekelso said:

The city of Santa Clara (not even the county, the city) spent $850 million on a stadium whose tenant has ten events a year. I'm sure New York or Chicago could come up with that kind of money for an Olympic stadium and find uses for it ten nights a year. 

Why does New York need an Olympic Stadium when they already have MetLife (and Yankee Stadium and Citi Field)?  Why does Chicago need an Olympic Stadium if they have Soldier Field?  Not to mention other stadiums in the metro area.  Yankee Stadium, which has 81 events a year, not 10, still has soccer and football and concerts to help try and generate extra revenue to justify the price tag.Santa Clara did not have a stadium.  They ponied up that money to lure the 49ers out of San Francisco.  It got them a Super Bowl.  Takes more than money to build a stadium.  It takes someone with the foresight of how to use that money and think it might be a wise investment.  A stadium without an anchor tenant that's competing with other existing stadiums in the area is a piss poor investment that no halfway decent businessman is going to go ahead with.  Why didn't LA have an NFL team for 2 decades when everyone knows it's a huge market that would easily support a team?  Because the opportunity didn't present itself.  Stan Kroenke created that opportunity because he made it work, not simply because there's a lot of money out there that he was desperate to spend.