No comment yet from Columbia.
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
BREAKING: NYFC plans to replace Wien Stadium
A story just out in the NY Times tonight reports that the MLS club, NYC FC is proposing a plan to demolish Wien Stadium and replace it with a 25,000 seat stadium to share with Columbia football. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/sports/soccer/new-york-city-fc-searching-for-stadium-site-is-considering-columbia-athletic-complex.html?referrer&_r=0
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Inwood Tiger is still processing how Inwood Tiger feels about this stunning bit of news.
Any new stadium would likely be a hulking enclosed monster, rather unsightly compared to lovely, open Wien with its view up Seaman. Then again, $400M can buy some very nice things.
Noise and lighting and traffic could get worse, or perhaps better given that existing issues are not fixable with Wien (lighting blasts the apartment buildings, noise from amplified sound during practices and pre and postgames is rude and violates noise code, parking is currently a mess but I assume a new stadium would trigger several new parking garages to replace surface lots east of Broadway -- and before anyone says "the stadium was there first", yeah it was, but not lighting, amplified sound or cars. CU constantly needlessly angers the people who should be its best friends.)
In any case, very big news. Much to learn about and consider both for Columbia and its neighbors.
All this for soccer? They can't share that very nice facility in easily accessible, parking-loaded Harrison?They'd have to dangle an awful lot of money in front of Mother Columbia. And we'd thus have to play at least one entire season, likely two, maybe even three, entirely away. Not the brightest course of action while we're trying to re-establish ourselves with a new coach and system. Even to rattle around in a much larger "house," given our low attendance. might not be the brightest course of action.
And does anyone else recall the last time CU played games at a non-opponent's stadium? despite the mailing of two free tix per "home game" to every home in East Rutherford, it didn't result in any appreciable "crowding" at what was then Meadowlands Stadium. (Several local residents, however, rather touchingly aware of my own ties to CU, in fact dropped off their tix for me at the candy store where I'd been hanging out since age 12 in town. )
I would nevertheless bet that the city's local construction unions, already a totally self-serving lot in whose interest an agonizingly slowwwwwwwwww erection process always seems favorable, will back this proposal with all their hearts and political muscle. That NYC already seems to hate Columbia will also probably play a role here.
So I suppose I;m saying that we're screwed, likely will have very little choice in the matter.
I have already spoken with my inside source. This story is coming from NYCFC; community and political pressure will kill it. As Aaron Rodgers once said, relax. This ain't happening.
Have no fear, folks. This will never happen. Nor should it.
This is an amended cc of a note I sent to friends after being alerted to the article earlier.
"This will go nowhere. After the pounds of flesh extracted by our neighbors for the slightest improvements to Baker, their resistance to night games, etc., etc., I don't think there's a snowball's chance that Inwood would ever go along with an industrial size stadium that would actually bring quantities of fans in on a regular basis.
And what would we get out of it besides 30 mil of improvements. Hell, we can't even fill Kraft to 40%, and that's at Homecoming.
Besides, I don't think the current city admin has the political balls to force this thru community opposition, although I would dearly like to see it happen. Not for the stadium, but to stick it to Inwood for a change." (with sincere apologies to the Tiger)
No, this is just something floated unilaterally by the PR hacks at the soccer club, probably to leverage a deal somewhere else.
Little choice? Seems to me the choice is all ours, Richard. And after the instant thrill at imagining a gleaming new stadium, it seems to me that accepting this offer would be a horrible choice.
Baker, with so many major sports crammed in to it, belongs to Columbia. We would in reality be surrendering a major portion of our only athletic acreage to a deep-pockets pro soccer et al. operation. Besides playing two games a week
there other than Saturday, the soccer team would need to practice there too. When would our football team practice?
Give up all this for five , or even only four homes games per year?
We lose control of our land our football field for what. Eight thousand more seats for a total of 25,000 that are always empty anyway?
I'd love to see a sellout for Lion champions but even when we win a title will our usual "crowd" of 2,000 ever exceed the current 17,000 capacity?
And to do this at the same moment Bagnoli has begun the tough job of remaking CU football?
If there is any logic to Columbia going for this, I'd love to hear it.
In 1996 we had excellent attendance; but I am adamantly opposed to this Allen Pavilion type rip-off. There is a big empty parking lot/dump site east of Broadway. We own it; we can lease the land, currently an eyesore, to the soccer moguls and let them build their stadium there.
This is a nonsense idea and if it goes forward or even continues to be talked about at this critical time it will mean the end of CU football.
Mtich S 68CC
Big Dawg, I know you meant well but I took a lot of offense at your comment. Do you have any idea how much time I spend trying to calm down angry neighbors and remind them that Columbia is actually pretty great to have around? No one minds the games, but blasting the lights when no one is on the field, bass-shaking music when no game is taking place, that kind of stuff really annoys people to no end. I saw it myself the other day when the team was running a practice and they had huge speakers on the field cranked to 11 and pointed at the street. There was no need for such volume, and at least they could have pointed the sound away from the apartments.
In any case, your view is not exactly a common one. In fact, I've never even heard it given voice before. Stick it to Inwood? For what? What has Inwood ever actually done to Columbia? CU gets its way, and we try to get along with them and maybe get the trash picked up and some new trees in the process.
If this were Family Feud, "I would dearly like to stick it to Inwood for a change" would be the answer that got a 2 out of 100. First place answer for "We asked 100 people what they thought about Columbia-Inwood relations?" would have been "I would dearly like stick it to Columbia for a change", closely followed by "What's Columbia? Where's Inwood?"
Look, the term "industrial size stadium" was bang-on. In New York, stadiums over 2,500 seats are in fact barred from residential areas and require commercial or industrial zoning, for obvious reasons. Baker's Field, all of it, is zoned R7-2 residential. People living nearby know that, bought their homes on that assumption and have a right to expect to see that zoning followed. Sure, the football stadium predated zoning and I guess the '83 replacement was able to continue that allowed use, and that's great. Yay Lions! But tearing it down and building a new pro sports facility hosting 30+ games a year of at least 20,000 fans each, half of them in cars, would appear to be a whole new, ahem, ballgame.
Many people in Inwood are actually quite excited about having a soccer stadium in the area. We'd just like to see it go on the Columbia-owned parking lots on the east side of Broadway or on top of the abandoned body shops or the subway yard - places that are already zoned commercial and would be perfectly fine for pro sports stadium, garages, bars and restaurants, etc. The tiny part of Inwood that is residential and functioning beautifully should be left alone.
Tiger, I expected your riposte. And as I stated earlier, I respect your position. We have fought the good fight together for enough years that this is a simple difference of opinion.
I actually agree quite strongly with your comments re "noise". The quality and the volume of the so-called music is horrific. It certainly doesn't add to the game experience. While I can't believe that speakers are actually aimed at the apartments, all sound should be directed at the field and the river, and quite frankly be reduced to 50% of current levels. I never realized it was played during practice. The loudest sounds I ever heard were the coaches yelling at us. So that should be addressed as well.
Lighting? Those lights have been up for longer than most people have lived there, and only affect the folks across from the field. They should have thought of that when they moved across the street from the biggest outdoor stadium in Manhattan.
My real issue, however, is the sense of entitlement Inwood has re Baker Field. Every change/addition we make to our own private property is paralleled by a bribe to the community. To improve the boathouse we had to create a wildlife park with public access (on our property). To build the Campbell Center we had to make major concessions. etc., etc.
If we could get Bollinger to use eminent domain, maybe we could buy up a buffer zone of properties around Baker, rent them to ass't professors, and gradually start moving south, eventually joining Manhattanville.
Kind of reminds me of the playing fields at Cal Berkeley. Berkeley is a very tight fit. In fact, most of the SF Bay Area older towns are designed more for horse and carriage than transportation so space is really at a premium. A patch of grass the soccer, softball, rugby and other teams use reaches into a residential area. One of the residents opposes it so much they invested in a massive audio system that blasts opera as an overpowering statement. There's no lights up there, just noise from the games and practices. Some people just agree to disagree.
Dawg, thank you for your thoughtful note. I completely respect your love for Columbia Football and I'm not your enemy, but I do want to set the record straight as you keep mentioning things that are not true.
The scoreboard and its main speakers face the apartments and residential neighborhood. It's a shame they were not built on the south side of the stadium facing north (for sun alone they should have done that) but that's the way it has been since the "new" stadium was built. So any music echoes throughout a couple dozen apartment buildings and houses. Was not as much of an issue in the past when it was mostly just the soothing dulcet tones of Martin Collins making announcements but in recent years CU has really amped the music, even when the band is playing. As for practices, the portable speakers were positioned near the grandstand, one angling towards 218th St and one angling towards the river. Both could have been pointed to the river, and they could have been turned down.
The lights have obviously been there for years, heck the original stadium had flood lights starting in 1930. No one complains about that. What you may not realize is that they are on late at night most days of the year. Intramurals, practices, etc. all require lighting. The neighbors are fine with that, but when it rains and practice is cancelled or when an intramural books the field but does not show, the lights stay on. So you have buildings across the sheet needing blackout shades when no one is actually using the field. Also, I know a thing or two about lighting design and the lights are horribly designed in terms of cut-off. Columbia has said they have a timer but it is hard to turn the lights off ad hoc, etc. etc. Bottom line is that they really make a manageable issue much worse. I don't know how else to explain it other than show it to you some night at 10 pm when the field is empty and it looks like a WWII air raid going on in terms of lighting.
I think your accusations of entitlement are grossly misplaced. Yes, there are a few people who seem to forget the stadium was there first, is perfectly legal and act like they should never be inconvenienced. I work hard to shut down those types. But the true sense of entitlement has always belonged to Columbia. New construction requires a waterfront path per city planning laws? Find a way to trade for something less onerous. PR requires to hold a neighborhood appreciation day? Make sure no one knows about it and bury the tickets with the slimy local politicians. etc. etc.
You're interpreting the concessions given to the community as something the community even wanted when really those were minor deals struck to achieve what Columbia really wanted, which was to skirt the city law regarding waterfront development. Now as a result if a new stadium is built there will be no waterfront trail, and that project could have actually afforded one...
Back the main point, I think it's great to have Columbia next door. With some minor effort, they could be even better neighbors. But if they think they can use their legal right to build a stadium in a residential zoning district and flip it to a major league sports team that would increase attendance by 2000% and drive us insane from March to November they are going to trigger a massive fight.
The lighting system on our football scoreboard is terrible and so is the sound system. Any body else notice this?
Post a Comment