New England Revolution Stadium | 173 Alford Street | Boston-Everett
- Thread starter KentXie
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2010
- Messages
- 8,894
- Reaction score
- 271
Re: Somerville Soccer Stadium
Let's compare CenturyLink Field and Gillette Stadium... shall we?
CenturyLink:
In the urban core, slightly south of downtown Seattle.
Int'l District
Light rail from this station:
LINK
Bus Buses from this station
41
66
71
72
73
74
76
77
101
102
106
150
216
218
219
316
550
661
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gillette Stadium:
...NOTHING. In the middle of f'ing NOWHERE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soccer can fill CenturyLink Field because it is in the urban core, easily accessible by multi-modal transit options, and caters to the urban demographic. If Gillette Stadium happened to be in Boston, Revolution games would not have such dismal attendance numbers and soccer could actually work in the football stadium. Instead, Gillette is in the middle of nowhere and is impossible to access by transit (the one commuter rail train they run doesn't count). Because of this, the international demographics in JP, Roxbury, Cambridge, Somerville, E Boston, Chelsea, Revere, etc have no way to access games because these demographics demonstrate high public-transit reliance.
Let's compare CenturyLink Field and Gillette Stadium... shall we?
CenturyLink:
In the urban core, slightly south of downtown Seattle.
Int'l District
Light rail from this station:
LINK
Bus Buses from this station
41
66
71
72
73
74
76
77
101
102
106
150
216
218
219
316
550
661
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gillette Stadium:
...NOTHING. In the middle of f'ing NOWHERE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soccer can fill CenturyLink Field because it is in the urban core, easily accessible by multi-modal transit options, and caters to the urban demographic. If Gillette Stadium happened to be in Boston, Revolution games would not have such dismal attendance numbers and soccer could actually work in the football stadium. Instead, Gillette is in the middle of nowhere and is impossible to access by transit (the one commuter rail train they run doesn't count). Because of this, the international demographics in JP, Roxbury, Cambridge, Somerville, E Boston, Chelsea, Revere, etc have no way to access games because these demographics demonstrate high public-transit reliance.
Re: Somerville Soccer Stadium
I definitely think the attendance would be much higher, especially since a core demographic of soccer seems to live closer to the urban core. I'd also be more likely to take my son to a game if I didn't have to haul him to Foxboro.
I definitely think the attendance would be much higher, especially since a core demographic of soccer seems to live closer to the urban core. I'd also be more likely to take my son to a game if I didn't have to haul him to Foxboro.
bobthebuilder
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2013
- Messages
- 433
- Reaction score
- 158
Re: Somerville Soccer Stadium
I enjoy soccer, but I'm not going all the way down to Gillette for a game. I would absolutely go to a game if there was a stadium in town. I went to a game in Philly, and there was a pregame tailgate that was all you can drink/eat for wicked cheap. The whole thing was a blast, and I really don't care about the Union. If we had that up here, I'd definitely go to a fair amount of games. It'd be a great cheap alternative to the other major sports.
I enjoy soccer, but I'm not going all the way down to Gillette for a game. I would absolutely go to a game if there was a stadium in town. I went to a game in Philly, and there was a pregame tailgate that was all you can drink/eat for wicked cheap. The whole thing was a blast, and I really don't care about the Union. If we had that up here, I'd definitely go to a fair amount of games. It'd be a great cheap alternative to the other major sports.
Re: Somerville Soccer Stadium
Regarding stadium size, there is no reason you couldn't design a "right sized" (I hate that term) stadium so it could structurally support the addition of a mezzanine at a later date. Stadiums tend to get a complete overhaul every 15-20 years anyway, so as part of that it would be no big deal to expand it as well. They do (or at least used to do) this with bridges all the time, and its somewhat common to build a low-rise with provisions to add more floors at a later date.
------------------------------------------------
And now for a Fenway Park / preservation tirade.
Being on the National Register does not in any way preclude necessary renovations to keep a structure in use, especially if that use is the same as what it was designed for. The HP standards are not designed to create museums. In fact, a great deal of the community now believes that museums are just about the worst use for a historic structure, since it is typically unsustainable from a financial standpoint, and also insensitive to the buildings genesis: as a working, functioning, occupied space.
The National Register, and the Standards for Historic Preservation that govern how to work with registered properties, are a guide on how to work with them as to not undertake work that would undermine their cohesiveness. It is not meant to place an undue burden on the owner (or steward would be a better term), but ensure that what makes them special in the first place is not destroyed.
A good example is one of Frank Lloyd Wrights houses, where the cantilevered roof had a design flaw and kept bowing every few years. They were able to replace the entire structure with steel, but simply had to make sure that from the exterior the changes were not evident, and that they well documented the work and left indications of what was there prior. That's pretty common: iron or wood being replaced with steel, concrete reinforcement hidden inside a brick wall, etc. Additions are also perfectly acceptable, they just have to be visually distinct and identifiable as a later addition, removable with minimal work, and do as little damage to the original structure as possible. As much as it's hated, the Johnson wing of the BPL is actually a pretty good example of this. You could tear it down and the original structure would be pretty much still there.
On top of not being as much of a hindrance is typically perceived, preservation work that sticks to the standards can get 20% of hard costs back from the state, as well as 20% from the feds in the form of tax credits. So the extra costs associated with the complications in dealing with these properties are mitigated, as long as the work is done correctly. A properly done project can sometimes even be cheaper than building new, and it is by far more sustainable. The notion of a building having a "lifespan" is also new-age BS coined to allow buildings to be built cheap and fast, expecting them to be torn down instead of maintained. Fenway is older than this belief, built to be rehabbed and modified indefinitely, much like the housing stock of the adjacent neighborhood.
The issue is, 99% of architects and contractors have no idea what to do with historic properties. They look at a project and the first instinct is a gut and remodel. Cover it with glass, modernize everything. Make it "better". When they are told they can't it just becomes impossible! Part of it is ego, part of it is lack of knowledge. Many projects don't use tax credits because they don't understand the process, think it won't work for what they are trying to do, or a million other reasons that really boil down to not hiring a good preservation consultant.
Landmarking properties, and by extension the HP standards are guidelines, like building codes. They restrict what you can and can not do for an established greater good, not to straight up block anything from happening. Hardly anything is impossible to do with a registered property, it just takes setting aside personal preference and ego, a healthy dose of cleverness and innovation, and working within the context of the existing building. It always amazes me how working with old buildings is regarded, as if it is some undue burden that must be aggressively dealt with, like mold. Designers are inherently problem solvers: turning site constraints, budget, program and codes into a serviceable (and hopefully aesthetically pleasing) building. I for one love working with the challenges inherent in this work, but to many it seems like the bane of their existence.
Looking at the progression of HP, it's really very similar to how we see urban planning. First they thought it best to tear everything down and start with a clean slate; now it's seen as better to work with, and expand upon the bones of what's already there. Fenway is a serviceable structure, and I think there are several ways they could squeeze more life and amenities out of it.
If it were me, I'd use 1960 as my starting point; after the field dimensions were basically established, light towers, green monster and the organ installed, but before the majority of the roof and upper deck seating was added. From that period, I'd start with a brand new second and third level, extending over the Jeano Building and possibly cantilevering over some of Van Ness. You could get a ton more seating out of that park if you tore off everything above the roof, instead of supplementing the mess that has been cobbled together over the past 50 years. Just about the only thing you couldn't do would be to remove the obstructed view seating. Its technically possible, but it's such a unique and well known part of the park they would have to stay.
For something more dramatic, I'd look at demolishing the Cask 'n Flagon and the garage next door, and reorienting Landsdowne to meet Brookline Ave at a 90° angle over the pike. Use all that space for new retail, amenities, and an expanded third deck in place of the monster seats. You couldn't mess with the facade of the Jeano building , but a triangle-shaped parklet could be created where Lansdowne was for a new entrance gate, with some seating cantilevered above.
The big issue is a project to really bring the current Fenway up to spec by tearing down everything post 1960 would either have to see the Sox play somewhere else for a season, or have a few years with drastically reduced seating while the renovations were underway. There is no way you could pull off something of this magnitude during the winter break.
If the sox were to move, I for one believe they would loose a lot of what makes them who they are. The brick and mortar Fenway Park is just as much a part of the team as the logo. To quote the NPS's page on the park:
That's something you don't get if Fenway is made into a museum while the Sox play in some replica stadium with no tie to why the field is the way it is. You don't get Kenmore Square, the Citgo Sign, Yawkey Way, or every other little quirk that makes seeing a game at Fenway so much more unique than most other ballparks, or hell, sports venues in general.
As to not clutter this thread, I've cross-posted the above into the New Fenway thread for further discussion.
Exactly. Same issue as locating in a NE city thats not Boston, it would have less of a transit-accessable fan base.
Regarding stadium size, there is no reason you couldn't design a "right sized" (I hate that term) stadium so it could structurally support the addition of a mezzanine at a later date. Stadiums tend to get a complete overhaul every 15-20 years anyway, so as part of that it would be no big deal to expand it as well. They do (or at least used to do) this with bridges all the time, and its somewhat common to build a low-rise with provisions to add more floors at a later date.
------------------------------------------------
And now for a Fenway Park / preservation tirade.
Being on the National Register does not in any way preclude necessary renovations to keep a structure in use, especially if that use is the same as what it was designed for. The HP standards are not designed to create museums. In fact, a great deal of the community now believes that museums are just about the worst use for a historic structure, since it is typically unsustainable from a financial standpoint, and also insensitive to the buildings genesis: as a working, functioning, occupied space.
The National Register, and the Standards for Historic Preservation that govern how to work with registered properties, are a guide on how to work with them as to not undertake work that would undermine their cohesiveness. It is not meant to place an undue burden on the owner (or steward would be a better term), but ensure that what makes them special in the first place is not destroyed.
A good example is one of Frank Lloyd Wrights houses, where the cantilevered roof had a design flaw and kept bowing every few years. They were able to replace the entire structure with steel, but simply had to make sure that from the exterior the changes were not evident, and that they well documented the work and left indications of what was there prior. That's pretty common: iron or wood being replaced with steel, concrete reinforcement hidden inside a brick wall, etc. Additions are also perfectly acceptable, they just have to be visually distinct and identifiable as a later addition, removable with minimal work, and do as little damage to the original structure as possible. As much as it's hated, the Johnson wing of the BPL is actually a pretty good example of this. You could tear it down and the original structure would be pretty much still there.
On top of not being as much of a hindrance is typically perceived, preservation work that sticks to the standards can get 20% of hard costs back from the state, as well as 20% from the feds in the form of tax credits. So the extra costs associated with the complications in dealing with these properties are mitigated, as long as the work is done correctly. A properly done project can sometimes even be cheaper than building new, and it is by far more sustainable. The notion of a building having a "lifespan" is also new-age BS coined to allow buildings to be built cheap and fast, expecting them to be torn down instead of maintained. Fenway is older than this belief, built to be rehabbed and modified indefinitely, much like the housing stock of the adjacent neighborhood.
The issue is, 99% of architects and contractors have no idea what to do with historic properties. They look at a project and the first instinct is a gut and remodel. Cover it with glass, modernize everything. Make it "better". When they are told they can't it just becomes impossible! Part of it is ego, part of it is lack of knowledge. Many projects don't use tax credits because they don't understand the process, think it won't work for what they are trying to do, or a million other reasons that really boil down to not hiring a good preservation consultant.
Landmarking properties, and by extension the HP standards are guidelines, like building codes. They restrict what you can and can not do for an established greater good, not to straight up block anything from happening. Hardly anything is impossible to do with a registered property, it just takes setting aside personal preference and ego, a healthy dose of cleverness and innovation, and working within the context of the existing building. It always amazes me how working with old buildings is regarded, as if it is some undue burden that must be aggressively dealt with, like mold. Designers are inherently problem solvers: turning site constraints, budget, program and codes into a serviceable (and hopefully aesthetically pleasing) building. I for one love working with the challenges inherent in this work, but to many it seems like the bane of their existence.
Looking at the progression of HP, it's really very similar to how we see urban planning. First they thought it best to tear everything down and start with a clean slate; now it's seen as better to work with, and expand upon the bones of what's already there. Fenway is a serviceable structure, and I think there are several ways they could squeeze more life and amenities out of it.
If it were me, I'd use 1960 as my starting point; after the field dimensions were basically established, light towers, green monster and the organ installed, but before the majority of the roof and upper deck seating was added. From that period, I'd start with a brand new second and third level, extending over the Jeano Building and possibly cantilevering over some of Van Ness. You could get a ton more seating out of that park if you tore off everything above the roof, instead of supplementing the mess that has been cobbled together over the past 50 years. Just about the only thing you couldn't do would be to remove the obstructed view seating. Its technically possible, but it's such a unique and well known part of the park they would have to stay.
For something more dramatic, I'd look at demolishing the Cask 'n Flagon and the garage next door, and reorienting Landsdowne to meet Brookline Ave at a 90° angle over the pike. Use all that space for new retail, amenities, and an expanded third deck in place of the monster seats. You couldn't mess with the facade of the Jeano building , but a triangle-shaped parklet could be created where Lansdowne was for a new entrance gate, with some seating cantilevered above.
The big issue is a project to really bring the current Fenway up to spec by tearing down everything post 1960 would either have to see the Sox play somewhere else for a season, or have a few years with drastically reduced seating while the renovations were underway. There is no way you could pull off something of this magnitude during the winter break.
If the sox were to move, I for one believe they would loose a lot of what makes them who they are. The brick and mortar Fenway Park is just as much a part of the team as the logo. To quote the NPS's page on the park:
That's something you don't get if Fenway is made into a museum while the Sox play in some replica stadium with no tie to why the field is the way it is. You don't get Kenmore Square, the Citgo Sign, Yawkey Way, or every other little quirk that makes seeing a game at Fenway so much more unique than most other ballparks, or hell, sports venues in general.
As to not clutter this thread, I've cross-posted the above into the New Fenway thread for further discussion.
Last edited:
underground
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 2,390
- Reaction score
- 3
Re: Somerville Soccer Stadium
I don't think a Boston stadium's any more likely than a Somerville one in all honesty. This looks like more of the usual out of the Krafts; blow some smoke to drum up interest while spending zero actual dollars. Next year they'll be telling us all about the really exciting "opportunities" they've "exploring" in Quincy. Year after that, lather, rinse, repeat with some other town standing in.
I don't think a Boston stadium's any more likely than a Somerville one in all honesty. This looks like more of the usual out of the Krafts; blow some smoke to drum up interest while spending zero actual dollars. Next year they'll be telling us all about the really exciting "opportunities" they've "exploring" in Quincy. Year after that, lather, rinse, repeat with some other town standing in.
Re: Somerville Soccer Stadium
If they build a stadium that would double as an olympic venue (since this thread has going entirely hypothetical), then they could build a full stadium with the ability to be downsized. If it ocmes on ahead of schedule, you could have the Revs play there a year or two before, maybe the year after, and if the market doesn't support it, it could be downsized/rightsized/whatever.
If they build a stadium that would double as an olympic venue (since this thread has going entirely hypothetical), then they could build a full stadium with the ability to be downsized. If it ocmes on ahead of schedule, you could have the Revs play there a year or two before, maybe the year after, and if the market doesn't support it, it could be downsized/rightsized/whatever.
Commuting Boston Student
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2012
- Messages
- 1,168
- Reaction score
- 1
Re: Somerville Soccer Stadium
Okay, but now we're right back at the original problem of either overbuilding on the promise that yes, indeed, Gillette being in the middle of nowhere (soccer train notwithstanding) is the one and only reason why soccer is being held back in Boston - and if it turns out that, say (see below) a major contributing factor is that there are four other major league teams and several colleges crowding soccer out of this market, then we end up stuck holding the bag; or we under-build and pin ourselves into a stadium that is obsolete before the end of its first ten years of active use; or we try and have our cake both ways by building a "right-sized" stadium with loads of expansion potential baked into the plans, and then (especially if you expect to need to grow out as well as up) you end up sitting on a lot of under-utilized space (hello, surface parking lots!) immediately around the stadium that you might have overpaid for waiting to find out whether option A or option B occurs, and if option B occurs and you didn't need the expansion space after all, then you got burned in two separate ways.
I say it again - we cannot win if we act now. This is the very worst possible time to act, and our chances of success can only improve if we wait out the next five or ten years for other cities (like DC, who is about to make this exact same mistake) to get burned. Then we can surf in on the rising tides of MLS 2.0 and, having learned from the mistakes of other towns who just weren't patient enough, we can pioneer the way into the future.
I use the term "right sized" as a derogatory. And, indeed, it really is a slap in the face to every single MLS team - a sort of "forget Seattle, those guys are outliers. The rest of you are never going to be able to manage to pack a stadium larger than 20,000 seats or so. Hell, some of you idiots can't handle 10,000!" That having such comparatively small stadiums is seen as "right sized" is a direct admission of failure, a waving of the white flag.
It's actually an insult that cuts both ways now that soccer is actually starting to go off like gangbusters in the US and a lot of other cities are about to have some real egg on their face as far as up-sizing their stadiums go.
Maybe if we end up mothballing enough "right-sized" stadiums, we can create MiLS or Division II Soccer or something. I don't know. The point is, a whole lot of mistakes have been made in the rush to build dedicated stadiums under MLS 1.0, and now that we're approaching the glorious future of MLS 2.0 those chickens are coming home to roost in a bad way. And I'd rather my city be leading the charge on MLS 2.0 than coming in as a late arrival to MLS 1.0.
As I said before, placing this thing literally anywhere other than inside of 128 is about as safe a bet as these things come, given the relative lack of venue space of this kind in places like Providence, or Worcester.
(Providence also benefits from the prestige of finally having major league sports return to the city, and that's going to drive further investment that you will never have in Boston, with MLS competing against four other major league sports plus several colleges for attention. To a lesser extent, Hartford would draw the same benefit - but I think Hartford really wants the Whalers back rather than any other team.)
Certain parts of Providence, if the proposal for Revs Stadium was a serious one on the table today, would actually fight really hard to make it happen - whereas in Boston, as you say, there's a lot of smoke blowing by the Krafts and I'd wager quite a fair amount of indifference. I can't speak for Manchester or Worcester or Lowell or any of the other cities in New England because I don't live in those places, but I would imagine that they would be just as excited to have some kind of identity in major league sports.
It's just a damn shame that the only time Providence is going to actually enter this conversation is as a way for the Krafts to try and extort concessions from the city.
Good god, man! Are you trying to kill half the forum?!
Okay, but now we're right back at the original problem of either overbuilding on the promise that yes, indeed, Gillette being in the middle of nowhere (soccer train notwithstanding) is the one and only reason why soccer is being held back in Boston - and if it turns out that, say (see below) a major contributing factor is that there are four other major league teams and several colleges crowding soccer out of this market, then we end up stuck holding the bag; or we under-build and pin ourselves into a stadium that is obsolete before the end of its first ten years of active use; or we try and have our cake both ways by building a "right-sized" stadium with loads of expansion potential baked into the plans, and then (especially if you expect to need to grow out as well as up) you end up sitting on a lot of under-utilized space (hello, surface parking lots!) immediately around the stadium that you might have overpaid for waiting to find out whether option A or option B occurs, and if option B occurs and you didn't need the expansion space after all, then you got burned in two separate ways.
I say it again - we cannot win if we act now. This is the very worst possible time to act, and our chances of success can only improve if we wait out the next five or ten years for other cities (like DC, who is about to make this exact same mistake) to get burned. Then we can surf in on the rising tides of MLS 2.0 and, having learned from the mistakes of other towns who just weren't patient enough, we can pioneer the way into the future.
I use the term "right sized" as a derogatory. And, indeed, it really is a slap in the face to every single MLS team - a sort of "forget Seattle, those guys are outliers. The rest of you are never going to be able to manage to pack a stadium larger than 20,000 seats or so. Hell, some of you idiots can't handle 10,000!" That having such comparatively small stadiums is seen as "right sized" is a direct admission of failure, a waving of the white flag.
It's actually an insult that cuts both ways now that soccer is actually starting to go off like gangbusters in the US and a lot of other cities are about to have some real egg on their face as far as up-sizing their stadiums go.
Maybe if we end up mothballing enough "right-sized" stadiums, we can create MiLS or Division II Soccer or something. I don't know. The point is, a whole lot of mistakes have been made in the rush to build dedicated stadiums under MLS 1.0, and now that we're approaching the glorious future of MLS 2.0 those chickens are coming home to roost in a bad way. And I'd rather my city be leading the charge on MLS 2.0 than coming in as a late arrival to MLS 1.0.
As I said before, placing this thing literally anywhere other than inside of 128 is about as safe a bet as these things come, given the relative lack of venue space of this kind in places like Providence, or Worcester.
(Providence also benefits from the prestige of finally having major league sports return to the city, and that's going to drive further investment that you will never have in Boston, with MLS competing against four other major league sports plus several colleges for attention. To a lesser extent, Hartford would draw the same benefit - but I think Hartford really wants the Whalers back rather than any other team.)
Certain parts of Providence, if the proposal for Revs Stadium was a serious one on the table today, would actually fight really hard to make it happen - whereas in Boston, as you say, there's a lot of smoke blowing by the Krafts and I'd wager quite a fair amount of indifference. I can't speak for Manchester or Worcester or Lowell or any of the other cities in New England because I don't live in those places, but I would imagine that they would be just as excited to have some kind of identity in major league sports.
It's just a damn shame that the only time Providence is going to actually enter this conversation is as a way for the Krafts to try and extort concessions from the city.
Good god, man! Are you trying to kill half the forum?!
fattony
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,099
- Reaction score
- 480
Re: Somerville Soccer Stadium
Agree.
Disagree, sort of.
Soccer doesn't have to be mainstream to warrant a dedicated stadium. It just needs to be big enough to support the team and the stadium. MLS has proven to have that today. I also think that an urban stadium is suited to soccer (and it's non-mainstream status) in a way that it is NOT suited to, say, football. If anyone wanted to plant an 80,000 seat stadium with associated parking in somerville I'd call them crazy.
Under 40,000 seats, decent transit connections with way less parking per seat than football demands? We call that Fenway Park and it has been a wild success for a century.
Agree.
Disagree, sort of.
Soccer doesn't have to be mainstream to warrant a dedicated stadium. It just needs to be big enough to support the team and the stadium. MLS has proven to have that today. I also think that an urban stadium is suited to soccer (and it's non-mainstream status) in a way that it is NOT suited to, say, football. If anyone wanted to plant an 80,000 seat stadium with associated parking in somerville I'd call them crazy.
Under 40,000 seats, decent transit connections with way less parking per seat than football demands? We call that Fenway Park and it has been a wild success for a century.
Re: Somerville Soccer Stadium
I can't see any stadium being built in Boston-metro with surface parking. The garden has the underground garage, and that's it. Fenway is loosing most of it's to garages, and it wasn't built with any to begin with. Even the college stadiums don't have much in the way of surface parking: Harvard games people park on the practice fields, BU just decked over their main lot, even BC is pretty limited.
Plus, if the argument is that people aren't watching soccer because of lack of transit / they don't want to drive to Gillette, why would they be driving to a stadium in the city?
If the surface parking is for future "outwards" expansion, that just won't happen. This isn't Gillette with patriots place or the meadowlands mall... thing, whatever surrounds the stadium will likely be apartment or office buildings, not a mall or seas of cars. Besides that, the lower bowl of seating defines the width of the stadium, you wouldn't go any further than it.
So you design a single deck stadium that can seat 14k patrons. You design the structure with provisions so it can have a second, or possibly even third tier added later on with no modifications to the existing structure being necessary. It's not right sizing, its just smart planning. If the provisions never get used, whatever, its a percentage point of extra costs. If the fan base explodes, bam, you can activate mothballed ramps, add a second tier and have another 10k seats.
It's no different then when they built the George Washington Bridge with a provision for a second deck. Or the GL stub tracks at North Station should they every be extended past it. It's just smart planning.
They got burned because they didn't think soccer's fan base would increase. If you plan for that possibility (as they should have), its no issue. And don't forget, like Fenway and the garden, Boston can definitely populate a venue during downtime for non-sports things and still make money. Fenway seats 37k, the garden seats 17, a stadium somewhere around there would do fine.
Good. Lets go right size some sustainable green eco-friendly buzzword bullshit.
I can't see any stadium being built in Boston-metro with surface parking. The garden has the underground garage, and that's it. Fenway is loosing most of it's to garages, and it wasn't built with any to begin with. Even the college stadiums don't have much in the way of surface parking: Harvard games people park on the practice fields, BU just decked over their main lot, even BC is pretty limited.
Plus, if the argument is that people aren't watching soccer because of lack of transit / they don't want to drive to Gillette, why would they be driving to a stadium in the city?
If the surface parking is for future "outwards" expansion, that just won't happen. This isn't Gillette with patriots place or the meadowlands mall... thing, whatever surrounds the stadium will likely be apartment or office buildings, not a mall or seas of cars. Besides that, the lower bowl of seating defines the width of the stadium, you wouldn't go any further than it.
So you design a single deck stadium that can seat 14k patrons. You design the structure with provisions so it can have a second, or possibly even third tier added later on with no modifications to the existing structure being necessary. It's not right sizing, its just smart planning. If the provisions never get used, whatever, its a percentage point of extra costs. If the fan base explodes, bam, you can activate mothballed ramps, add a second tier and have another 10k seats.
It's no different then when they built the George Washington Bridge with a provision for a second deck. Or the GL stub tracks at North Station should they every be extended past it. It's just smart planning.
They got burned because they didn't think soccer's fan base would increase. If you plan for that possibility (as they should have), its no issue. And don't forget, like Fenway and the garden, Boston can definitely populate a venue during downtime for non-sports things and still make money. Fenway seats 37k, the garden seats 17, a stadium somewhere around there would do fine.
Good. Lets go right size some sustainable green eco-friendly buzzword bullshit.
Re: Somerville Soccer Stadium
Is there any reason Fenway could not be used as a soccer stadium? It housed the Patriots for awhile. How big is the field difference between soccer and football? How many soccer games are played per season?
Is there any reason Fenway could not be used as a soccer stadium? It housed the Patriots for awhile. How big is the field difference between soccer and football? How many soccer games are played per season?
SeamusMcFly
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2008
- Messages
- 2,050
- Reaction score
- 110
Re: Somerville Soccer Stadium
It was only 4 years ago.....
That being what it was.... Fenway is natural grass and is a baseball specific park.
Soccer destroys natural fields as we saw at Foxboro. Baseball parks are all about beautiful green fields.
Fenway will always be natural grass, therefore, no regular soccer.
http://www.masslive.com/sports/index.ssf/2010/07/glasgow_celtic_beats_sporting.html
It was only 4 years ago.....
That being what it was.... Fenway is natural grass and is a baseball specific park.
Soccer destroys natural fields as we saw at Foxboro. Baseball parks are all about beautiful green fields.
Fenway will always be natural grass, therefore, no regular soccer.
underground
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 2,390
- Reaction score
- 3
Re: Somerville Soccer Stadium
Major issue with using Fenway is the MLB and MLS seasons overlap. It'd also probably be impossible to figure out a solution to regularly converting the field to soccer usage. You'd need to be able to lay some sort of sod down in the warning track and have it be steady enough to play soccer on. And you'd need to do that about 20 times a year (totally guessing on # of home MLS games).
Major issue with using Fenway is the MLB and MLS seasons overlap. It'd also probably be impossible to figure out a solution to regularly converting the field to soccer usage. You'd need to be able to lay some sort of sod down in the warning track and have it be steady enough to play soccer on. And you'd need to do that about 20 times a year (totally guessing on # of home MLS games).
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2010
- Messages
- 8,894
- Reaction score
- 271
Re: Somerville Soccer Stadium
^ Yankee Stadium is actually going to be the home of the newly formed New York City FC for an undetermined number of years beginning in 2015. http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/artic...unce-yankee-stadium-be-home-field-2015-season
Rendering:
Btw, in the MLS regular season, there are 17 home games.
^ Yankee Stadium is actually going to be the home of the newly formed New York City FC for an undetermined number of years beginning in 2015. http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/artic...unce-yankee-stadium-be-home-field-2015-season
Rendering:
Btw, in the MLS regular season, there are 17 home games.
JumboBuc
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2013
- Messages
- 2,646
- Reaction score
- 1,515
Re: Somerville Soccer Stadium
You have this backwards. Soccer needs to be played on natural grass more than any other sport. It's American football that tears up the grass...
The only MLS stadiums without natural grass are Portland (built for baseball) and New England, Seattle, and Vancouver (all built for football). All the soccer-specific stadiums have grass. Toronto originally had FieldTurf, but they then spent $3.5 million tearing it all up and putting in grass. In fact, whenever they hold big internationals at Gillette they actually lay temporary natural sod over the FieldTurf, as the world's best players flatly refuse to play on the plastic stuff.
You have this backwards. Soccer needs to be played on natural grass more than any other sport. It's American football that tears up the grass...
The only MLS stadiums without natural grass are Portland (built for baseball) and New England, Seattle, and Vancouver (all built for football). All the soccer-specific stadiums have grass. Toronto originally had FieldTurf, but they then spent $3.5 million tearing it all up and putting in grass. In fact, whenever they hold big internationals at Gillette they actually lay temporary natural sod over the FieldTurf, as the world's best players flatly refuse to play on the plastic stuff.
Re: Somerville Soccer Stadium
Hartford would undoubtably love to get the Whalers back, but it currently looks like there's a decent chance that the Rockcats are going to relocate there. The construction of two new arenas at the same time would probably be a bit two much. Granted, there was a time we thought the Patriots might be going to Hartford too...
Worcester already has a sorta big name pro sports team with the Sharks, and they have rather middling attendance: http://www.hockeyattendance.com/team/worcester-sharks/2012/
Transportation actually wouldn't be an issue for a Worcester stadium, because there is decent amounts of land available near downtown and Union Station:
http://goo.gl/maps/pQXTb
Add in the future restoration of the Blackstone Canal in the area, and you end up with...
...A waterfront stadium!
Hartford would undoubtably love to get the Whalers back, but it currently looks like there's a decent chance that the Rockcats are going to relocate there. The construction of two new arenas at the same time would probably be a bit two much. Granted, there was a time we thought the Patriots might be going to Hartford too...
Worcester already has a sorta big name pro sports team with the Sharks, and they have rather middling attendance: http://www.hockeyattendance.com/team/worcester-sharks/2012/
Transportation actually wouldn't be an issue for a Worcester stadium, because there is decent amounts of land available near downtown and Union Station:
http://goo.gl/maps/pQXTb
Add in the future restoration of the Blackstone Canal in the area, and you end up with...
...A waterfront stadium!
coleslaw
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2013
- Messages
- 596
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Somerville Soccer Stadium
this is stupid all other countries play soccer on grass fields.
this is stupid all other countries play soccer on grass fields.
coleslaw
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2013
- Messages
- 596
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Somerville Soccer Stadium
NO the revs should not move to Fenway. An improvement on gillette? maybe, it is closer after all. But that is a terrible venue for watching soccer and still leaves soccer as a second class support reliant on another sports field. If soccer is to develop in the US and become a major sport, which it certainly can; it is the biggest sport for kids in the US, it is on regular TV all the time now (something that never used to be the case), and is actually talked about all the time, it cannot be relegated to second class status.
NO the revs should not move to Fenway. An improvement on gillette? maybe, it is closer after all. But that is a terrible venue for watching soccer and still leaves soccer as a second class support reliant on another sports field. If soccer is to develop in the US and become a major sport, which it certainly can; it is the biggest sport for kids in the US, it is on regular TV all the time now (something that never used to be the case), and is actually talked about all the time, it cannot be relegated to second class status.