Build West Side Stadium?

I don't know if there has been a poll done about the west side stadium before, but if not, please vote and/or state your opinions about it if you want.

I have seen that there are alot of differences about the stadium but I want to know what you guys think. I know there are interesting arguments going on at another thread, but I will like to have a poll done and see the results of our memebers (who will vote).

I think that the Stadium will be a good investment for the west side. The city and the state are putting money to cover the site and uplift the area a little bit and it should be done anyway. I keep hearing that the stadium should be built somewhere else and built other things instead. (What else can be built?) more offices and residential? There are a lot of other places for that, including the other boroughs. I am glad the jets and the city chose this area for the stadium anyway. There is nothing in this area and there will be nothing else for years to come.

I also like the stadium renderings. They are spectacular and everything looks amazing around it. The Jets will share the stadium with the city, which it makes total sense. That MSG is just jealous and they want all the money they are making for them selves. They need to build something else on their site or another site close by. There is more traffic where they are anyways.

So about 50% take public transit to MSG well it will be about the same amount for the Jets stadium. That leaves the rest to cars, but how about taxis? That is not a bad percentage. Sundays will be good for that. I don’t even care about traffic I walk in the city anyway. So the ones who might get angry of traffic are the ones who live outside the city. If people get in traffic so be it. They might get tire and start thinking of public transportation.

So I vote Yes.

I voted yes on the stadium. Forgetting about the Jets and the Olympics, this stadium will still be a tremendous draw for events to the city and mostly be able to co-exist with MSG. Sure there will be some events that will choose NYSCC instead of MSG because of its increased size, but that doesn't mean the garden will have any difficulty filling its seats either, if cablevision can learn how to operate in an environment of competition.

The question becomes: would this stadium be just as good in Queens (or the Meadowlands) as on the west side of Manhattan. I have to say that it wouldn't. The big apple bowl or the Final Four wouldn't care about queens. Super Bowl XLV would not happen here. Major concert promoters would still book the garden where a larger arena would also sell out. Also let's not forget that the Jets are fully committed to Manhattan or nothing... it's the allure of being in the city that drives these events.

MSG is a great arena, although in desperate need of rennovation/replacement. It is far too small to fully service the demands of the market however. I think Cablevision made a horrendous mistake by pulling out of the agreement the Jets mentioned that would have the Garden combine with the NYSCC so the Jets, Knicks and Rangers would all play in the same new stadium.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deimos

I voted yes on the stadium. Forgetting about the Jets and the Olympics, this stadium will still be a tremendous draw for events to the city and mostly be able to co-exist with MSG. Sure there will be some events that will choose NYSCC instead of MSG because of its increased size, but that doesn't mean the garden will have any difficulty filling its seats either, if cablevision can learn how to operate in an environment of competition.

The question becomes: would this stadium be just as good in Queens (or the Meadowlands) as on the west side of Manhattan. I have to say that it wouldn't. The big apple bowl or the Final Four wouldn't care about queens. Super Bowl XLV would not happen here. Major concert promoters would still book the garden where a larger arena would also sell out. Also let's not forget that the Jets are fully committed to Manhattan or nothing... it's the allure of being in the city that drives these events.

MSG is a great arena, although in desperate need of rennovation/replacement. It is far too small to fully service the demands of the market however. I think Cablevision made a horrendous mistake by pulling out of the agreement the Jets mentioned that would have the Garden combine with the NYSCC so the Jets, Knicks and Rangers would all play in the same new stadium.

---

While the allure of Manhattan is a stronger pull than Queens, no doubt, I would have to say that major event would still come to Queens with this new gem of a facility. Let's be honest, it's a 20 min train ride to GC. The US Open is held annually in Queens, as are Mets games. If the Final Four can go to the Meadowlands, it surely would come to such a great facility in Queens. If it for some crap reason not get done in Manhattan, it would be a HUGE mistake to not put it in Queens. As it is now, I would love to see the Jets on the West Side and the Giants in Queens or as part of the NASCAR development on Staten Island. **** Jersey altogether.

Again, I love the stadium in Manhattan and think it's a winner, but please put away your Manhattan-centric glasses for a minute and be realistic.

billy, after re-reading my statements and taking your argument into account, I have to agree that I was a little to manhattan centric earlier. I'll be more constructive in my assessment for this post.

If the stadium were to be built in queens, it would be an open roof design most likely. Keep in mind that the roof for nyscc will remain open for all jets games, only closing for the super bowl, college bowls, basketball games, and conventions. The Jets are on the record as stating that they believe that the elements are part of the fun of playing football in the northeast.

Without any possible convention space to fill in queens, there is little hope to expect that a roof would be put on the new stadium just for a yearly bowl game, one super bowl, and one final four. This would mean that NYC will not get the final four, Super Bowl XLV, or the Big Apple Bowl at all if the stadium is not built on the west side as a piece of the Jacob Javits Center.

Now this still doesn't address the issue of whether those 3 events make the building of the stadium in manhattan more valid than queens, but I think that discussion that's already around 50 pages long would be a more appropriate location for that debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deimos

billy, after re-reading my statements and taking your argument into account, I have to agree that I was a little to manhattan centric earlier. I'll be more constructive in my assessment for this post.

If the stadium were to be built in queens, it would be an open roof design most likely. Keep in mind that the roof for nyscc will remain open for all jets games, only closing for the super bowl, college bowls, basketball games, and conventions. The Jets are on the record as stating that they believe that the elements are part of the fun of playing football in the northeast.

Without any possible convention space to fill in queens, there is little hope to expect that a roof would be put on the new stadium just for a yearly bowl game, one super bowl, and one final four. This would mean that NYC will not get the final four, Super Bowl XLV, or the Big Apple Bowl at all if the stadium is not built on the west side as a piece of the Jacob Javits Center.

Now this still doesn't address the issue of whether those 3 events make the building of the stadium in manhattan more valid than queens, but I think that discussion that's already around 50 pages long would be a more appropriate location for that debate.

---

All very valid points, but why do you think that the city would not spring for a roof in Queens. We would be going after the same events, outside of the Javits extension. You may be right, but this may also be part of the bargaining/threat as to why it needs to be in Manhattan.

By the way, I hope I didn't come off snippy with you. That was not my intent.