11/21/24
May 20, 2004
Jets Release Details on Manhattan Stadium.: The New York Jets released details of their planned West Side stadium Tuesday, featuring wind turbines and solar collector tubes to generate much of its own electricity and hot water. The emphasized section brings up a question: What took stadium builders so long to do this? Was the technology not there? Too expensive? Either way, this is very cool.
I wonder how much of that $1.4 Billion price tag is due to the property value and extra construction trying to build in a place like Manhatten? Wise on them to tie in the Olympic thing though. That should secure some extra funding. The turbines and solar panels are v. cool. And yeah, it strikes me as frustrating odd that the Jets are willing to pony up $800mm for their stadium, yet Jerry Jones is only willing to pony up ~$250mm for his new proposed JerryLand, less than half the total cost.
posted by Ufez Jones at 01:45 PM on May 20, 2004
I'm not sure that football stadiums are good investments of public dollars. Aside from eight (or eleven if you're lucky) days out of the year, you have to think up other things to do with them or they sit idle. Sure, the stadium will create 7000 permanent jobs, but how many of those are full-time and year-round? At least with the old ugly multi-purpose stadiums you had a real argument that they were good for the surrounding area.
posted by Jugwine at 02:08 PM on May 20, 2004
but isn't this stadium considered multi-purpose as well, what with it being designed for the olympics and all? there's no reason you couldn't have concerts, soccer matches, and other stuff there as well.
posted by goddam at 02:17 PM on May 20, 2004
NYC isn't in the best financial shape and the stadium is a hard sell on a lot of levels (for developers, for the neighborhood, for the city) - the Jets will have to pay a decent chunk or it won't happen at all
posted by kokaku at 02:22 PM on May 20, 2004
Well, right, if you have the Olympics, then the stadium makes sense in the near term. From what I understand, though, NYC is kind of a long shot for 2012. Not as long as Moscow, but certainly Paris, Madrid and London are more likely. Still, as a venue, is a stadium in Manhattan as attrative as the alternatives in the area? Are the Metro Stars likely to move from the Meadowlands? I'm not sure when their lease is up. You could have concerts there, but New York is not particularly lacking in concert venues and I'm not sure how big of a show you'd have to put on in a football stadium to make it worthwhile. How many bands even put on big stadium shows anymore? According to the Jets Website, the stadium would play host to 17 stadium events, 30 conventions, and two super-events per year which means the building will be idle (aside from "daily events and activities") on the other 316 days. There is no way that all 7000 of those jobs they promise to bring will be available year round, and if the businesses in the area require stadium traffic to thrive, they better charge enough on those 49 days that something is happening for them to survive the rest of the year. If the Jets want to build this themselves (and to their credit, they do want to pay for most of it) that's fine with me, so long as they buy up the land at market value. However, unless the Olympics is coming to NY, I don't think that it's worth it for the local merchants and taxpayers.
posted by Jugwine at 02:52 PM on May 20, 2004
i'm not a fan of the proposal, i just assumed that there would be other uses for the stadium given it's proximity to the javits center. the Metrostars are hoping to build their own stadium in Harrison. which would be fantastic for the area and the Metros.
posted by goddam at 03:20 PM on May 20, 2004
It might be expensive to build in the first place, but think of the savings in operational costs. Sustainable technologies like what they're proposing typically have a high initial cost, but end up paying for themselves within a few years. And I'm sure a lot of the figure is due to it being in Manhattan, with infrastructure upgrades and all.
posted by LionIndex at 04:27 PM on May 20, 2004
Will the platform shown as holding the Olympic torch (in the night photo) be used for high dive exhibitions? There's a few extra days of use, although the seats are in the wrong direction.
posted by billsaysthis at 06:17 PM on May 20, 2004
I think the reuse/multi-use argument is pretty thin. Lotta hard questions gotta get asked, and answered, before any public money goes to this, say I.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:49 PM on May 20, 2004
I agree - the reuse/multi-use agruement is waffer thin. 316 days a year empty? I'm really not a huge fan of these publicly funded eyesores.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 09:12 PM on May 20, 2004
Oh yeah, it would cost $1.4 billion. So, I guess cost is still an issue. Yikes! Other than the cost, it sounds like a very cool stadium.