Gillette Stadium

F-Line to Dudley

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
7,807
Reaction score
3,242
Perhaps a downtown location with severe height restrictions due to Logan. There are locations like that out in the far Seaport.
The problem is...the closer you embed in Downtown, the more infrastructure dependencies you incur. Including things like "how big a water main to flush the toilets that far out to the fringes of the Seaport?" Locating near the CBD makes it less likely that the thing can be full private-financed because the dependencies and complexities get greater. Now, it's one thing if there's some broad-based transpo improvements that slug their ROI 365 days a year...it's quite another for the utilities on a usage case where 300 toilets are all being simul-flushed at the start of halftime. You're simply not going to get utility stressors like that with literally any other land usage case *but* a stadium. So why kill ourselves over that???

I'd support a full-private stadium in the CBD, too, if somebody could come up with one. I just *extremely* doubt anyone's going to come up with one, because of the scaling challenges. So we're back to existentials re: why does it have to be full-embedded urban in the first place and what's so goddamn objectionable about the suburbs on-spec?
 

mass88

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
2,112
Reaction score
96
There's nothing wrong with the suburbs for a soccer stadium location. What's the main reason people feel an urban stadium will be the magic bullet to the Revs seeing 22k plus a game? Or seeing an uptick in relevancy? The only thing that will do that is results on the field and the last couple of years, they've done that pretty well.
 

JeffDowntown

Senior Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
3,548
Reaction score
914
There's nothing wrong with the suburbs for a soccer stadium location. What's the main reason people feel an urban stadium will be the magic bullet to the Revs seeing 22k plus a game? Or seeing an uptick in relevancy? The only thing that will do that is results on the field and the last couple of years, they've done that pretty well.
Some of the thinking for an urban stadium is that Boston, and some of the close urban towns, have a large Latino population, and many of these people grew up with soccer as the primary sport they follow. This thinking could be totally flawed, as they may never want to be Revs fans. Near North Shore, in particular, is pointed to as having a high concentration of soccer fans (not necessarily Revs fans).
 

F-Line to Dudley

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
7,807
Reaction score
3,242
Some of the thinking for an urban stadium is that Boston, and some of the close urban towns, have a large Latino population, and many of these people grew up with soccer as the primary sport they follow. This thinking could be totally flawed, as they may never want to be Revs fans. Near North Shore, in particular, is pointed to as having a high concentration of soccer fans (not necessarily Revs fans).
Drawing a heat-seeking missile straight from the demographics to MLS is where that thinking goes flawed. MLS is a pretty minor league (with the mistakes of trying to "over-Americanize" it at its founding still hurting its perception years later). Serious fans are more likely going to spring for a big-screen TV and some ace cable/PPV package of their favorite premier league to say they watched the best rather than very dump large shares of their personal incomes into the home team of a pretty middling league. Home-team spirit is elastic, but it ain't that elastic when the talent pool is mid-tier.

And again, despite the Game Train not running for Revs games like it does for Pats games, we're still missing the ingredient of what's so objectionable about the suburbs that it simply must be in the CBD? That blind-faith gripe that Foxboro is teh suck because it's in Foxboro is, per the last several pages, completely unfounded. Since any demographic, white or nonwhite, with the disposable income to afford regular game attendance is also very extremely likely to already own a car, I don't see where ethnicity demographics have any bearing on this. MLS being something a little short of "Major League" overwhelmingly rates as a bigger impediment, and that truth unfortunately sticks to the product in very location-agnostic fashion. There are a lot enough soccer fans in America to generate pretty buff attendance, but nobody's sticking their wallets out quite as far as they would if it were a U.S.-based EPL team or something truly in the top tier of world competition. Gillette's own attendance differentials for National Team games vs. MLS sort of reveal the degree of disparity there between paying to watch the best vs. watching...the merely "pretty 'aight".
 
Last edited:

jlichyen

New member
Joined
May 29, 2019
Messages
27
Reaction score
32
If you think a CBD stadium is a good idea, I'd encourage you to take like 20 minutes and load up Google Maps and explore the stadiums of major European and Asian cities. There's a definite pattern: the stadium is on a major subway line, or an inner-city regional rail branch line, but always at least 3~6 stops outside the CBD, never within the downtown "net" of subway lines. The stadium is accessible by rail to the majority of people, but usually via a transfer or two. That's a totally reasonable expectation! And the exceptions are, from what I can see, are Tokyo (which, I mean...) and all these American cities which have totally surrendered to highway hell.

From this perspective, Gillette Stadium is fine! If I were to do it again, I'd probably place it closer to Mansfield (specifically where 95 & 495 meet) along the NEC to make rail rides easier, but I don't think this is super necessary a thought process? Given the current situation, my priority would be making a Framingham <-> Middleborough circumferential line worth the investment, though this might be a crazy transit pitch more than anything.

American football is particularly unsuited to a downtown-adjacent stadium since it attracts so much parking all at once, and if your highways aren't big and hellish enough you'll shut everything down! So Foxboro works great in this capacity. I mean, a soccer stadium just outside downtown could work - I've seen Widett Circle mentioned before, and it's a great spot! Two stations within 10 minutes walking distance, a highway exit nearby, and nothing of super-high-value in the immediate vicinity. If you were to rip out 93 and redevelop everything west of Newmarket into high-rises or whatever, then Widett might not make sense anymore - but now I'm talking god-mode-level planning changes!
 

mass88

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
2,112
Reaction score
96
If you think a CBD stadium is a good idea, I'd encourage you to take like 20 minutes and load up Google Maps and explore the stadiums of major European and Asian cities. There's a definite pattern: the stadium is on a major subway line, or an inner-city regional rail branch line, but always at least 3~6 stops outside the CBD, never within the downtown "net" of subway lines. The stadium is accessible by rail to the majority of people, but usually via a transfer or two. That's a totally reasonable expectation! And the exceptions are, from what I can see, are Tokyo (which, I mean...) and all these American cities which have totally surrendered to highway hell.

From this perspective, Gillette Stadium is fine! If I were to do it again, I'd probably place it closer to Mansfield (specifically where 95 & 495 meet) along the NEC to make rail rides easier, but I don't think this is super necessary a thought process? Given the current situation, my priority would be making a Framingham <-> Middleborough circumferential line worth the investment, though this might be a crazy transit pitch more than anything.

American football is particularly unsuited to a downtown-adjacent stadium since it attracts so much parking all at once, and if your highways aren't big and hellish enough you'll shut everything down! So Foxboro works great in this capacity. I mean, a soccer stadium just outside downtown could work - I've seen Widett Circle mentioned before, and it's a great spot! Two stations within 10 minutes walking distance, a highway exit nearby, and nothing of super-high-value in the immediate vicinity. If you were to rip out 93 and redevelop everything west of Newmarket into high-rises or whatever, then Widett might not make sense anymore - but now I'm talking god-mode-level planning changes!
Exactly. The Allianz Arena, where Bayern Munich play, is located like 7-8 miles outside of central Munich. It's on a rail line and adjacent to a highway interchange on the outskirts of the city.

A stadium located at University Ave in Westwood would have been a perfect location. Closer to Boston and right on perhaps the commuter rail line with the most amount of service.
 

JumboBuc

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
2,453
Reaction score
865
Exactly. The Allianz Arena, where Bayern Munich play, is located like 7-8 miles outside of central Munich. It's on a rail line and adjacent to a highway interchange on the outskirts of the city.

A stadium located at University Ave in Westwood would have been a perfect location. Closer to Boston and right on perhaps the commuter rail line with the most amount of service.
Allianz Arena is an NFL-scaled (75k capacity) stadium of the 21st Century. Prior to 2005 Bayern played in the Olympiastadion, which is in the 1972 Olympic Village closer in to central Munich. Prior to the 70s they played in the Grundwalder Stadion, which is even closer in. Just as you see with baseball and football stadiums in the US, some of the biggest soccer stadiums in Europe are on the periphery of the city while some are right in the density. Allianz Arena is more on the "periphery" end of the spectrum. And generally, the newer and bigger the stadium (both of which Allianz counts as), the more likely the stadium is to be farther out.

When people propose a "downtown" soccer-specific stadium for MLS, I don't think anybody is thinking on the scale of something like the Allianz Arena. They're thinking more 20k - 30k capacity, which would be in the smallest quartile for stadiums in the Premier League or the Bundesliga.

Top-flight English stadiums (even the new ones) are nearly all right in amongst the urban density of a city, but not "downtown" per se. Land use in the US and UK is obviously very different, but a good analogy to the locations of many English stadiums is Fenway Park or Wrigley or Yankee Stadium. They're in the city on rail and transit, but not in the CBD. You won't find any Premier League stadiums in the City of London, but you will find them in Fulham and Islington and Tottenham and etc. The London stadiums are all well inside the M25. On the Boston scale, this would be much closer to maybe Allston or Somerville or Medford or Malden or Revere or Eastie or Dorchester than it would be to Foxboro or even Westwood. But yeah, a soccer stadium in a European equivalent of "Boston Proper" would also be unusual across the pond.
 
Last edited:

Stlin

Active Member
Joined
May 16, 2020
Messages
223
Reaction score
200
On the Boston scale, this would be much closer to maybe Allston or Somerville or Medford or Malden or Revere or Eastie or Dorchester than it would be to Foxboro or even Westwood. But yeah, a soccer stadium in a European equivalent of "Boston Proper" would also be unusual across the pond.
Aka, the 2016 proposal to build the revs stadium on the Bayside Expo site.
 

jklo

Active Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2015
Messages
706
Reaction score
113

Tangently related, the Chicago Bears look serious about moving out to the suburbs. It might be awhile before they could move (they have a lease with the City until 2033) but they are trying to buy land in Arlington Heights to build a stadium.
 

HenryAlan

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
2,665
Reaction score
780
If you think a CBD stadium is a good idea, I'd encourage you to take like 20 minutes and load up Google Maps and explore the stadiums of major European and Asian cities. There's a definite pattern: the stadium is on a major subway line, or an inner-city regional rail branch line, but always at least 3~6 stops outside the CBD, never within the downtown "net" of subway lines. The stadium is accessible by rail to the majority of people, but usually via a transfer or two. That's a totally reasonable expectation! And the exceptions are, from what I can see, are Tokyo (which, I mean...) and all these American cities which have totally surrendered to highway hell.
This is what I've noticed, too. In fact, after visiting London for the Red Sox-Yankees series in '19, held at the former Olympic stadium, I decided that Readville would have been a much better site for our Olympic dreams than Widett Circle. And I also think it would be a decent location for a football or soccer stadium. Three regional rail lines service the area, it's not far from I-95 and I-93, the Red Line or perhaps Orange Line could be extended there at a relatively reasonable cost, and the area has plenty of development parcels and under utilized space.
 

NoShJFK

New member
Joined
Apr 18, 2021
Messages
79
Reaction score
61

Tangently related, the Chicago Bears look serious about moving out to the suburbs. It might be awhile before they could move (they have a lease with the City until 2033) but they are trying to buy land in Arlington Heights to build a stadium.
Absolutely insanity lol. I don’t get what’s so bad about Soldier Field. It’s location is amazing. It has rail decently close. It’s historic and modern. Maybe a roof would be awesome but that’s it.

Moving to Arlington Heights would be a painfully terrible decision. Arlington Heights is a solid 30 minutes outside Chicago. It’s not as miserably useless as Foxboro but still a decent distance from the city center.
 

jklo

Active Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2015
Messages
706
Reaction score
113
Absolutely insanity lol. I don’t get what’s so bad about Soldier Field. It’s location is amazing. It has rail decently close. It’s historic and modern. Maybe a roof would be awesome but that’s it.

Moving to Arlington Heights would be a painfully terrible decision. Arlington Heights is a solid 30 minutes outside Chicago. It’s not as miserably useless as Foxboro but still a decent distance from the city center.
City owns the land and the stadium. The renovation didn't go over that well with some people and the stadium lost it's historical status.
 

NoShJFK

New member
Joined
Apr 18, 2021
Messages
79
Reaction score
61
USA Today: Ranking NFL Stadiums, Gillette a mediocre 23rd
The concept of stadiums with open end zones was a thing from the early 2000s, and it is a feature at Foxborough. The problem is it doesn’t open up to a beautiful skyline or a majestic view


Sporting News: Gillette ranks 18th

ESPN (9/2020) - Gillette ranks 23rd of 28

What needs work: Gillette was majorly dinged on two factors -- cost and traffic flow. Getting to and from Gillette is also a nightmare, as the limited options in and out of the stadium cause gridlock. The remote Foxborough location isn't great, but the Patriot Place complex somewhat makes up for that.
 

NoShJFK

New member
Joined
Apr 18, 2021
Messages
79
Reaction score
61
City owns the land and the stadium. The renovation didn't go over that well with some people and the stadium lost it's historical status.
Yeah I mean I’m not in love with the spaceship look of it but I don’t think it’s as bad as it’s made out to be. I think with some development around it. Maybe a roof over it. I think they should stay there. Or if they don’t - somewhere else in Chicago. Arlington Heights is a hike. It’s further away from the city core than Gillette is. Absolute silliness to move there
 

NoShJFK

New member
Joined
Apr 18, 2021
Messages
79
Reaction score
61
I still remember the Jets plan for a West Side Stadium. That would’ve turned out to be the flagship stadium in both the NFL and the nation.

Imagine a stadium of SoFi Stadiums quality just a few blocks from MidTown Manhattan? With a gorgeous new LIRR, MetroNorth, NJT, PATH & NYC Subway mega station built directly underneath - with a Hudson Yards like development surrounding it?

That would’ve totally changed the fortunes of the NYJ franchise from one a joke and one that free agents hesitate going too from one that everyone wants to be a part of.

The stadium they ended up building is awful. It’s just a modernized version of the generic cookie cutter BS that Giant Stadium was.



6A341821-A983-4BDA-8DAD-FB7D9E51E73F.jpeg
F9144DD4-EA4E-4B8E-B18C-3F2CD956B30C.jpeg
 

F-Line to Dudley

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
7,807
Reaction score
3,242
I still remember the Jets plan for a West Side Stadium. That would’ve turned out to be the flagship stadium in both the NFL and the nation.

Imagine a stadium of SoFi Stadiums quality just a few blocks from MidTown Manhattan? With a gorgeous new LIRR, MetroNorth, NJT, PATH & NYC Subway mega station built directly underneath - with a Hudson Yards like development surrounding it?

That would’ve totally changed the fortunes of the NYJ franchise from one a joke and one that free agents hesitate going too from one that everyone wants to be a part of.

The stadium they ended up building is awful. It’s just a modernized version of the generic cookie cutter BS that Giant Stadium was.



View attachment 14340View attachment 14341
No...not building West Side Stadium saved NYC from having to shell out at least $1 billion to construct it. At least. It probably would've been much much more than that. New Yorkers overwhelmingly rejected the financing, which involved a no-bid contractor and mashing in the giant pro sports gamble with their giant-er failed Olympics gamble. The results would have been apocryphally bad had it gone through, and history records NYC is extremely glad it dodged that bullet.


Like clockwork, this thread is being bumped on a 2-week interval spreading the same retconning pap about public-financed CBD stadiums being the answer if you just ignore the giant sucking sound of public resources in the background. Stop it. You are not going to single-handedly outwork the very real, very pervasive, and very baked-in opposition to massively public-financed stadiums in this region by blasting the same disingenuous talking points on repeat. Either find the specifically rare confluence of events that lets a private-finance stadium get built in the CBD (and, in all honesty, good luck in finding that confluence!) or deal with the fact that it's going to have to be 100% private financing in the outer suburbs where the outer 'burbs are the only places that infrastructurally allow an ROI for full-private financing. Therefore, if Foxboro truly sucks as bad as you think it does, the competing sites are overwhelmingly likely to be in a similar suburban setting on/outside of Route 128. Acknowledge the realities of the situation, and spare us another round of the "but MY sky is green" performative act about how everyone except you is wrong about massive-outlay CBD stadiums. This discussion is going nowhere having to confront the same falsehoods week after week after week.
 
Last edited:

BronsonShore

Active Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2014
Messages
159
Reaction score
256
I still remember the Jets plan for a West Side Stadium. That would’ve turned out to be the flagship stadium in both the NFL and the nation.

Imagine a stadium of SoFi Stadiums quality just a few blocks from MidTown Manhattan? With a gorgeous new LIRR, MetroNorth, NJT, PATH & NYC Subway mega station built directly underneath - with a Hudson Yards like development surrounding it?

That would’ve totally changed the fortunes of the NYJ franchise from one a joke and one that free agents hesitate going too from one that everyone wants to be a part of.

The stadium they ended up building is awful. It’s just a modernized version of the generic cookie cutter BS that Giant Stadium was.



View attachment 14340View attachment 14341
The bolded is correct but… not really relevant?You've yet to articulate why the interests of a football team should trump the interests of a city. That’s the question you need to answer, because a giant, rarely-used infrastructure suck of a stadium doesn’t really serve the latter.

Edit: F-Lines right. The bolded isn’t actually correct. But even if it were, the question still stands.
 
Last edited:

F-Line to Dudley

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
7,807
Reaction score
3,242
The bolded is correct but… not really relevant?You've yet to articulate why the interests of a football team should trump the interests of a city. That’s the question you need to answer, because a giant, rarely-used infrastructure suck of a stadium doesn’t really serve the latter.
Is it, though? The Jets print money at the Meadowlands and always have (both at the new one, and the old one), and none of their questionable football personnel decisions dating back 50 or so years and counting which fueled their on-field "joke" status have any correlation whatsoever to where they've played or whether that place has constrained their revenues. Some of the best urban parks imaginable have hosted the most clownshoes-run ballclubs, after all! Hello, Wrigley...hello, Camden Yards...hello, Soldier Field! Like...that quite demonstrably does not--especially not in such an intensely salary-capped/revenue-shared league--impact the quality-of-construction of the on-field product. If it did, Jerry Jones would be sweeping GM Of The Year awards for 12 years straight since AT&T Stadium opened...and, well, he quite very much hasn't.

It's thrown in there strictly as more chum in the water to distract from the fact that the finances are so no-good awful for public-financed CBD pro sports stadiums. The only arguments left are intensely emotional ones like that, wherein someone allows themselves to buy into ^that^ level of myth-making that quality of venue somehow inspires a F.O. to try harder. There's less than nothing behind the claim.
 

Top