Now you do : )
I don't know how you draw your conclusions but there you are. I would like to see a major roller coaster (or 3) built in Boston's vicinity. Revere Beach used to have 3 giant woodies, including at one time the world's tallest and fastest. Hull used to have the world's tallest and fastest (moved to Six Flags America and renamed Wild One). That's what we deserve back in the vicinity. I need to drive 100 miles for Superman and Wicked Cyclone, which are elite but far from top-level in 2024.So you don't like cities and prefer rural areas. Got it
If the Revs / Boston does this right, the "home team" can be a fun draw regardless of how good they are at an international level. They become a cultural part of the city, especially if ticket prices are kept affordable, the venue is friendly to a range of audiences (e.g., kids/families, 20-somethings, etc), and access is quick/reasonable.
A fun English example that a friend introduced me to long ago is the Stoke-on-Trent Potters (e.g., "Stoke City"). They are a local cultural gem, even though they have often sucked and have been relegated multiple times.
Stoke City F.C. - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Despite being decidedly uncool outside of their local fan base, they routinely pull 20k+ attendees/game and play in a 30,089 capacity arena:
Attendance: http://european-football-statistics.co.uk/attnclub/league/stkc.htm
Bet365 Stadium - Wikipedia
Now, for sure, US is not the UK when it comes to soccer, but my point more broadly is that a team doesn't need to be "great" performance-wise to be a fun cultural draw. But, on the flipside, if the experience is too expensive and too inconvenient, a sucky team will not become a cultural gem!
I think the placeholder stadium design sucks and the smokestack is great. But at the same time, a soccer stadium at this location will be a positive development for the area. My hope is that we can have our cake and eat it too. The stadium in its final form should take cues from the industrial past, going with a brick warehouse motif and keep the smokestack (with the word Revolution painted boldly from top to bottom).
... And so what if we add a 5th team to the market? Just domestically Washington/Baltimore is roughly the same market size, and does just fine supporting 7 total teams, including 2 NFL teams and 2 MLB teams. San Francisco has no problem with 2 MLB teams either, and both have MLS teams who got their soccer specific stadiums - and are doing well attendence wise. In fact, only 6 MLS teams don't have dedicated stadia - and The revs are one. This isn't going to stop folks from supporting the Bruins/Celtics/Patriots - they're unique sports and have distinct fantasies.
So the argument you're making is that no one will go to the stadium if it's built?
As posted earlier, I doubt this is possible as the smoke stacks would likely be on the half way line!
But that's 162 home games of the same sport.
That isn't as much on the market being able to support the team, though i take your point that SF isn't the best example. the abysmal attendance this year is part of a fan revolt against that move to Vegas. Granted, it was always towards the bottom, but it used to hover around the Orioles and Pirates.
So you agree that the stadium will be full but dont think we should build it because the Revs aren't at the same level as Real Madrid?
Honestly I love the idea of having an amusement park within Greater Boston, but the fact of the matter is there is capital ready and eager to clean up the waterfront and build the stadium, whereas that is not the case for an amusement park. If there were two competing proposals and one was roller coasters, that'd be one thing, but that's not the case. Do you really want the region to sleep on a transit-oriented stadium and privately-funded environmental remediation on the off chance that a proposal for Six Flags Boston magically appears?
ok, thanks for letting me know Boston has good sports teams.