Jump to content

NYC 2024 or 2028


Soaring
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 8/26/2016 at 1:36 AM, LDM said:

The most likely (however unlikely) way for something plausible to manifest (financially justifiable etc) would be if City Football Group - who own NYCFC, Man City & Melb City - to buy a sizeable minority stake in the Jets to have skin create another revenue stream to offset the costs/risks of building a brand new stadium. 

Stadium architectural design and capability is at a point where building a stadium that can morph into different use-cases is possible (i.e Soccer, NFL & Olympic T&F layouts). So building a new stadium that works is the easy part. It's having a compelling, sustainable business plan that is the issue. Having City Football Group combine with an NFL team (Jets) would fix that in my eyes.

Yes to the sentence in bold.  No to the sentence after it because of the sentence in bold.  It is technologically possible to pull something like that off, but at what cost?  Does it make sense for everyone involved, let alone the aspect of it involving the Olympics.  Soccer and NFL are pretty compatible with each other.  Track and Field is not.  Look what LA 2024 is proposing with the Coliseum.  That's not a simple conversion and if it's going to be done, it'll be for 1 use only.  So what's the purpose of building a stadium capable of holding Olympic track & field in the first place if it's likely going to compromise the stadium for its other uses?  The business aspect of it has to come first.  And especially with respect to the Jets.. right now they own and operate 50% of MetLife Stadium which came at a cost of $1.6 billion to build.  They're not going to settle for less than that, let alone why would they spend more money and leave a place they have so much invested in?  It just doesn't make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Yes to the sentence in bold.  No to the sentence after it because of the sentence in bold.  It is technologically possible to pull something like that off, but at what cost?  Does it make sense for everyone involved, let alone the aspect of it involving the Olympics.  Soccer and NFL are pretty compatible with each other.  Track and Field is not.  Look what LA 2024 is proposing with the Coliseum.  That's not a simple conversion and if it's going to be done, it'll be for 1 use only.  So what's the purpose of building a stadium capable of holding Olympic track & field in the first place if it's likely going to compromise the stadium for its other uses?  The business aspect of it has to come first.  And especially with respect to the Jets.. right now they own and operate 50% of MetLife Stadium which came at a cost of $1.6 billion to build.  They're not going to settle for less than that, let alone why would they spend more money and leave a place they have so much invested in?  It just doesn't make sense.

I should have prefaced my post by saying I am perfectly aware of how improbable and unlikely any of these 'solutions' are at actually being implemented. But the topic is about how does NYC get an Olympics with the stadium being the issue. My suggestion was merely how I believe I feel it could in the most realistic form (however unlilkely - obviously).

In response to your comments about LA and the Coliseum, the difference is that it is a pre-existing structure and has pre-existing constraints, built in a bygone era. These days stadium design and architecture is well advanced and capable of being able to morph into different use cases. Here in Australia we recently had a design proposal for our Olympic stadium in Sydney to be almost completely renovated so that the stands can pivot and move to accommodate the different dimensions of the sports we play - Aussie Rules, League, Rugby and Football (Soccer). So the technical requirements I don't feel are that hard.

As for the business case, that is obviously not as clear cut, however I do believe there could be value if you had: 1. a partner like the City Football Group and 2. a more central location actually in New York.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LDM said:

I should have prefaced my post by saying I am perfectly aware of how improbable and unlikely any of these 'solutions' are at actually being implemented. But the topic is about how does NYC get an Olympics with the stadium being the issue. My suggestion was merely how I believe I feel it could in the most realistic form (however unlilkely - obviously).

In response to your comments about LA and the Coliseum, the difference is that it is a pre-existing structure and has pre-existing constraints, built in a bygone era. These days stadium design and architecture is well advanced and capable of being able to morph into different use cases. Here in Australia we recently had a design proposal for our Olympic stadium in Sydney to be almost completely renovated so that the stands can pivot and move to accommodate the different dimensions of the sports we play - Aussie Rules, League, Rugby and Football (Soccer). So the technical requirements I don't feel are that hard.

As for the business case, that is obviously not as clear cut, however I do believe there could be value if you had: 1. a partner like the City Football Group and 2. a more central location actually in New York.

If the question is how does NYC get an Olympics, maybe the answer is that it doesn't unless the scenario involved is so far fetched that it's not even that realistic.  I see people post here a lot how the technological aspect of this is easy and give examples of how it could be done.  None of that matters in the least unless there's both a desire to push for that and a plan to make it workable and sensible.  In the context of how a city would bid for an Olympics, we're going to look at it that way.  But the reality of it is much tougher and not exactly so workable if we're dealing with actual scenarios likely to occur rather than to figure what might make an Olympics happen.  The question as always is ownership.  The Jets are an equal partner in MetLife Stadium.  It was their money that helped build it and they own and operate it equally with the Giants.  I know some have pointed to a break clause in the lease, but are they really going to trigger that so soon into the life of the stadium in order to build a new stadium that they have less say in the design of and have a similar ownership stake in?  Or perhaps less than what they have now if it's going to be taken over by an Olympic committee.

To your point about ANZ Stadium, you're talking about sports that would be regular tenants there.  It makes sense to accommodate them in order to attract those sports all to the stadium.  The Olympics are not a regular tenant.  That's an easy sell in a stadium that's owned by the government.  Much tougher seller here when the stadium is more likely to be owned by the club.  Look no further than London's Olympic Stadium to see what a mess that type of handover can become.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

As someone who has watched Football and Rugby at the Stade de France, track and field is definitely compatible with the former sports if consider as part of the original design plan. And Stade de France - which works is 18 years old

The KSS Group (UK) have this design which incorporates a variety of technology to create a concert/T&F/football & rugby venue adaptable for the differing requirements and with a 80,000 seat capacity

http://www.kssgroup.com/projects/japan-national-stadium/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, gromit said:

As someone who has watched Football and Rugby at the Stade de France, track and field is definitely compatible with the former sports if consider as part of the original design plan. And Stade de France - which works is 18 years old

 

No professional football or rugby team wants to make Stade de France its home. The only permanent tenants are the national football and rugby teams... and the rugby teams desperately wants out. Pretty sure the market has spoken, and spoken against Stade de France as a model to emulate  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would it really be a deal breaker for NYC if they actually had to use MetLife Stadium (a redeveloped/renovated one) as the Track & Field/Ceremonies stadium, despite the fact it is technically located in NJ? I mean, it is only 7.5km outside the state boundary.

If it is fine for NY football teams to call it their home stadium then why can't it be acceptable for an olympics? If anything it ties in with what Agenda 2020 stands for: a more sustainable and responsible venue plan. If football (soccer) can be played in other cities as part of the games schedule, why can't this scenario be acceptable? And New Yorkers may even be more engaged with the idea of the Olympics when one of the main hubs is located outside the epicentre of the city, ensuring less congestion. 



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problems with East Rutherford, New Jersey:

1. It's in Jersey, and IOC voters are snobs. 

2. Transportation sucks. 

3. The last big event where they insisted on making people use public transportation (the Super Bowl) was an unmitigated disaster.

4. Depending upon who is in charge at any given moment, political relations between New York and New Jersey can be great, or terrible. When the two sides are squabbling (or you just have a very petty fat man as governor of NJ) it's a pain in the ass. 

5. The stadium would be a terrible athletics stadium. If you are going to spend the money to make it Olympic-worthy, you are much better off spending that money building a stadium just about anywhere else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LDM said:

Would it really be a deal breaker for NYC if they actually had to use MetLife Stadium (a redeveloped/renovated one) as the Track & Field/Ceremonies stadium, despite the fact it is technically located in NJ? I mean, it is only 7.5km outside the state boundary.

If it is fine for NY football teams to call it their home stadium then why can't it be acceptable for an olympics? If anything it ties in with what Agenda 2020 stands for: a more sustainable and responsible venue plan. If football (soccer) can be played in other cities as part of the games schedule, why can't this scenario be acceptable? And New Yorkers may even be more engaged with the idea of the Olympics when one of the main hubs is located outside the epicentre of the city, ensuring less congestion. 

Interesting that you call it track & field, but then give the distance in kilometers.  Very confusing :D

The footprint for a regulation athletics track is much larger than a football field, let alone if you included everything that normally surrounds the track (although at the last 2 US-hosted Olympics were all in the infield).  There is no way to renovate or redevelop MetLife into something that could host athletics.  More important.. the stadium is owned and operated by the Jets and Giants.  Can't see them agreeing to give up control of their stadium for the Olympics.

So that an NYC bid would still need a large scale athletics stadium, that makes MetLife lose some appeal as a potential ceremonies venue.  As zeke noted, when they had the Super Bowl there a couple of years ago, they completely mis-handled the transportation arrangements.  The difference between a big event like that and a regular Sunday afternoon football game is that when it's the Jets or the Giants, more of the people in attendance are local.  They have cars.  They come early and leave late to tailgate.  They know their way around.  To have the ceremonies of the Olympics there means you have 80,000 people coming to the stadium, most of whom are not local and are reliant on public transportation.  And that number doesn't include all the athletes and performers you need to move back and forth.  New Yorkers will not be more engaged with an event located outside the epicenter of the city.  As the Super Bowl proved, if it's not in the heart of the city, it might as well be happening on the other side of the country.  That's both the blessing and the curse of holding a major event in New York, particularly one mostly catered to out-of-town visitors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Interesting that you call it track & field, but then give the distance in kilometers.  Very confusing :D

The footprint for a regulation athletics track is much larger than a football field, let alone if you included everything that normally surrounds the track (although at the last 2 US-hosted Olympics were all in the infield).  There is no way to renovate or redevelop MetLife into something that could host athletics.  More important.. the stadium is owned and operated by the Jets and Giants.  Can't see them agreeing to give up control of their stadium for the Olympics.

So that an NYC bid would still need a large scale athletics stadium, that makes MetLife lose some appeal as a potential ceremonies venue.  As zeke noted, when they had the Super Bowl there a couple of years ago, they completely mis-handled the transportation arrangements.  The difference between a big event like that and a regular Sunday afternoon football game is that when it's the Jets or the Giants, more of the people in attendance are local.  They have cars.  They come early and leave late to tailgate.  They know their way around.  To have the ceremonies of the Olympics there means you have 80,000 people coming to the stadium, most of whom are not local and are reliant on public transportation.  And that number doesn't include all the athletes and performers you need to move back and forth.  New Yorkers will not be more engaged with an event located outside the epicenter of the city.  As the Super Bowl proved, if it's not in the heart of the city, it might as well be happening on the other side of the country.  That's both the blessing and the curse of holding a major event in New York, particularly one mostly catered to out-of-town visitors.

I'm an Aussie (thus the km's), but have strong interest in US college sport (thus the Track & Field reference)!

Funnily enough I was over in NY for the Super Bowl a couple of years ago, but didn't go to the game and just stuck in Manhattan for the whole week. I didn't know it was such an issue with transport. But all the issues you raise make sense. Back to the drawing board I guess to figure out how to get a games to NYC....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, zekekelso said:

No professional football or rugby team wants to make Stade de France its home. The only permanent tenants are the national football and rugby teams... and the rugby teams desperately wants out. Pretty sure the market has spoken, and spoken against Stade de France as a model to emulate  

Paris doesn't have a football or Rugby team that can regularly generate crowds that size so of course none wants to move in. The national Rugby team wants to move out because it wants a stadium it owns, to increase its revenue to rival what England has in Twickenham. As far as I'm aware, it has no issues with the stadium as a structure.

The sightlines in the Stade de France are not completely ideal for football or Rugby or indeed for athletics. It is a compromise but it's not a bad one at all. Gromit is right, the stadium hosts all its various sports very well. It does indeed prove that such sports are not incompatible when the stadium layout is planned from the start.

That said, Americans sports franchises, as with most Premier League teams don't want compromises even if they are relatively small. They're wealthy enough to build and own the perfect stadium themselves (or in the case of the US, get the municipality to do so to their spec). And NYC doesn't need any new stadiums of an Olympic size. So it's all a bit of a moot point.

 

 

Edited by Rob.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So this just brings us back to the - all roads lead back to L.A. - since all the other U.S. Alpha would have the issue of the main stadium (besides other internal, critical issues that would likely see a bid derailed before it even got seriously off the ground). 

One of the next three Summer Olympic cycles is extremely likely  to go to the U.S. & since L.A. is the only U.S. Alpha city (& perhaps only U.S. city) that is best prepared (by all tangible accounts) within that time frame, then I believe that L.A. is going to be our next U.S. Summer Olympic host. 

Perhaps the next time around the Games rotate back to the U.S. another Alpha city would have all its I's dotted & T's crossed, but until then, looks like the City of Angels it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Rob. said:

That said, Americans sports franchises, as with most Premier League teams don't want compromises even if they are small. And NYC doesn't need any new stadiums of an Olympic size. So it's all a bit of a moot point.

Exactly.  The trend these days with the NFL isn't just to build a stadium that's functional, but one that's extravagant and worthy of attracting a Super Bowl.  NYC has theirs.  They won't need another one anytime soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FYI said:

So this just brings us back to the - all roads lead back to L.A. - since all the other U.S. Alpha would have the issue of the main stadium (besides other internal, critical issues that would likely see a bid derailed before it even got seriously off the ground). 

One of the next three Summer Olympic cycles is extremely likely  to go to the U.S. & since L.A. is the only U.S. Alpha city (& perhaps only U.S. city) that is best prepared (by all tangible accounts) within that time frame, then I believe that L.A. is going to be our next U.S. Summer Olympic host. 

Perhaps the next time around the Games rotate back to the U.S. another Alpha city would have all its I's dotted & T's crossed, but until then, looks like the City of Angels it is.

I've said it before.. Atlanta screwed everything up!  Around 2008 or 2012 would have been the ideal timing for NYC and things may have fallen into place if not for `96, as our alternate timeline if someone else gets the `96 Olympics has offered up.  With 2024 or 2028 more ripe for a US-hosted Olympics, Los Angeles is once again the right city at potentially the right time.  Then maybe down the line when the Summer Olympics are ready to come back here, a New York or a Chicago may have emerged to where it will make sense for them)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, zekekelso said:

Had Atlanta not won in '96, NYC would still have put forth a crappy bid and lost. Don't go blaming Atlanta for that. 

One thing Atlanta got right is the convertible stadium. Because they built it first and foremost as a baseball stadium, it was a very odd field for athletics, but it had a good afterlife. 

Ironic that you're talking about the afterlife in the past tense since a month from now, Turner Field will no longer be a baseball stadium as the Braves are headed out to the 'burbs.  Not to mention the Georgia Dome which is also being replaced and will be demolished in the next year.  So I don't think we can praise Atlanta for the afterlife of 2 of its most prominent venues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Ironic that you're talking about the afterlife in the past tense since a month from now, Turner Field will no longer be a baseball stadium as the Braves are headed out to the 'burbs.  Not to mention the Georgia Dome which is also being replaced and will be demolished in the next year.  So I don't think we can praise Atlanta for the afterlife of 2 of its most prominent venues.

Sure we can praise the afterlife of "Centennial Olympic Stadium". Twenty years of full time baseball is pretty darn good for an Olympic stadium. And, sadly in this day and age, 20 years without demanding a new stadium, or at least a major overhaul is pretty much the norm. The fact that Cobb county was corrupt enough to give the Braves a boatload of money, and the Braves wanted to move away from their "urban" fans says a lot of terrible things about society, but not about the stadium. 

Note - the Georgia Dome was not built for the Olympics. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On September 15, 2016 at 3:18 AM, Rob. said:

And NYC doesn't need any new stadiums of an Olympic size. So it's all a bit of a moot point.

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.

Edited by Nacre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...