mate, you've been freely voicing your opinion for pages now and it boils down to
Soccer is crap
I like tall things
a rollercoaster would be cool.
Potential Exelon Mystic Station Redevelopment | Everett
- Thread starter Equilibria
- Start date
Soccer is crap
I like tall things
a rollercoaster would be cool.
I played soccer for 10 years. Good soccer is fine. Having the 828th best team in the world as our local team is crap. Having the 828th best team in any sport is not worth the time or energy of fans who are used to rooting for, at absolute worst, still "Top 30-32" teams in 4 other sports.
The roller coaster thing seems as niche as soccer fans of the world's 828th best team. I bet we could build better than the 828th best roller coaster in the world. Maybe we should do that at Suffolk Downs since the current iteration of the place seems destined to fail.
But I did kind of go from some vague concerns to Devil's Advocate to vocal opposition pretty quickly. As I said, my concerns were wholly minimized and steamrolled but they still exist, especially the traffic.
ok, well forget about the world and deal with the US and Canada
The Patriots are top 32
The Revs are top 29.
daft argument.
bigpicture7
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 3,586
- Reaction score
- 7,850
It's more than that. He's brought up "moral superiority" and "telling me what's right" multiple times, which are contemporary political tropes. No one likes being talked down to, myself included. But this oversimplified political trope, used to generically disqualify one's opponent (e.g., your argument is 'moral,' therefore it may be subjective, and therefore I don't need to endure this feeling of being talked down to) is actually toxic. It implies there is no morality.
As much as I hate being talked down to, when I wake up in the morning and look in the mirror, I ask myself whether I have enough integrity to ever be willing to realize I am morally wrong about something, and my answer (on a good day) is yes. Some thing are in fact morally wrong.
All of that said, I am not going to waste capacity for moral analysis on this thread, and I have no idea about moral validity of any of the concepts being discuss here. I am just pointing out a toxic political trope.
Why would I do that? 4 leagues get the world's best players in their primes to play on their teams. We don't even keep our own, as the best US players typically play in Europe.
.....and YOU'RE comparing smokestack heights to a cornfield in Homer City, PA.
You are the person who brought up Hershey, and I pointed out a diagram that actually Pennsylvania has even taller smokestacks than Hershey. That's it, literally an informative diagram and nothing more. You are drawing made-up conclusions that aren't really there.
You keep digging in the wrong direction.
Boston is not Homer City and it is not Hershey, PA, nor is it Easton, PA, Eerie, PA or the other one listed in your list of glory. If you want to compete with them, God bless.
Serious, how can I help you become the public face of the opposition to Kraft's soccer stadium. We need to get you to a megaphone quickly!
thanks for this, been trying to pin point this process in my head!
Last edited:
Your first 3 listed Boston teams are all originals in their sports or leagues. The New England NFL team has existed 65 years.
The New England Revolution started in 1996 and plays the sport that is the FASTEST GROWING major sport in America - - and the most popular sport in the world.
The stadium is being built with no taxpayer outlay and the developer will pay $100 million to decontaminate a riverfront area that will then be a magnet for multiples of economic development, hotels, restaurants, theatres, etc.
But you want to reject all that in order to beat Homer City, PA for the tallest smokestack. Seriously, this is the funniest shit I've read in eons.
Last edited:
Fans of Boston's various college sports teams would like to have a word. As I recall, NEU, BU, BC basketball/hockey games generally get decent home attendance and BC alumni field needs its 44k capacity, with average attendance of 35k in 2022. Given the paucity in tournament appearances for those teams, I'd say we have a decent appetite for not-great sports.
Because at no point will we see Man U play the Revs. Even by your vaunted rankings list, Columbus Crew at 239 is roughly equivalent to RC Strasbourg, which is ligue 1, and the Revs at 828 are better than #843 Sheffield United, which was just relegated to EFL from the EPL, but still in the top tiers of English football. By your ranking list, American teams are roughly equivalent to some of the best teams in international play. And if you *want* the American teams to be able to compete with their European counterparts, they need the resources. They need the stadium, money, fans and prestige to be able to compete with the English or European clubs. As long as the Revs are shoved into a corner of Gillette they'll always be an afterthought.
Again, in this case you made up your own fictional narrative and continue to run with it. It must take a jarring lack of reading comprehension to draw these conclusions.
The "best" aren't outside the top 200 (or in our case top 800). That doesn't fit the definition of the word "best." There are good arguments for the stadium but arguing that MLS teams are amongst the "best" is not one of them.
Strongest arguments for the stadium:
-It will probably be full or close to full most games.
-It draws on a local crowd of soccer fans nearer to Boston.
-It's supposedly being funded by Kraft.
-It cleans up a contaminated site.
-It can also host concerts and other events. (which events and at the expense of which existing venues, or would it all be additional?)
Those are all valid, strong arguments that should be leaned on more heavily.
Poor arguments:
-Comparing poor cities with a single toy (lower division soccer team) to rich Boston with its many hi-tech toys (4 mostly-competitive pro teams at the top level) and saying it should translate to supporting the 828th best soccer team.
-Social justice (sorry but social justice in 2024 is being spread in the same way as Christianity in the middle ages, ie by force) Also what does this even mean, and what about all the other "deserving" places and "things" they deserve?
-Pretending it's a better product than it really is, ie "the 828th best team is among the best teams in the world."
The most valid concern that should be addressed is traffic, and the actual feasibility of these "perfect transit" situations where people aren't all (or at least mostly) trying to drive to the stadium.
The smokestack/old building discussion is basically about replacing something that some people like, while telling them "tough." It's the intrinsic value of memories and history, which does mean something to some people.
While the concerns can be overcome by the positives above, they are still concerns nonetheless, and telling people their concerns don't matter at all is not going to garner their support.
-It will probably be full or close to full most games.
-It draws on a local crowd of soccer fans nearer to Boston.
-It's supposedly being funded by Kraft.
-It cleans up a contaminated site.
-It can also host concerts and other events. (which events and at the expense of which existing venues, or would it all be additional?)
Those are all valid, strong arguments that should be leaned on more heavily.
Poor arguments:
-Comparing poor cities with a single toy (lower division soccer team) to rich Boston with its many hi-tech toys (4 mostly-competitive pro teams at the top level) and saying it should translate to supporting the 828th best soccer team.
-Social justice (sorry but social justice in 2024 is being spread in the same way as Christianity in the middle ages, ie by force) Also what does this even mean, and what about all the other "deserving" places and "things" they deserve?
-Pretending it's a better product than it really is, ie "the 828th best team is among the best teams in the world."
The most valid concern that should be addressed is traffic, and the actual feasibility of these "perfect transit" situations where people aren't all (or at least mostly) trying to drive to the stadium.
The smokestack/old building discussion is basically about replacing something that some people like, while telling them "tough." It's the intrinsic value of memories and history, which does mean something to some people.
While the concerns can be overcome by the positives above, they are still concerns nonetheless, and telling people their concerns don't matter at all is not going to garner their support.
Last edited:
No personal attack on you @DZH22 but I think you're just missing the point of this stadium entirely. You're trying to dig your heels in on the American exceptionalism angle that centers/ glorifies burning fossil fuels in smokestacks or car engines and sports that are the best in the world because no one else cares. What brings people to soccer games is not just a winning team but entertainment value, atmosphere, and community. You're completely off in terms of thinking it's not a good product.
I've been a massive fan of the MLS for the past 15 years now and you can't deny that the sport is popular and growing rapidly in the United States, even though the league isn't competing on the world stage (yet) they still attract exciting young players and massive stars because of the standard of living and the marketing opportunities (arguably the best soccer player ever is in the MLS right now). Even right now with the "rankings" the Revs are in, they average 23,000 fans in a football stadium which is not ideal for soccer. The model of success for soccer in the US the past decade is ~20,000 seats close to the city, with access to public transportation and things to do in the surrounding area. So trying to point to global rankings as a measure of success is entirely irrelevant, this team will be popular here and I don't think it's correct to think of it as a small niche. And in any case, the best soccer teams in the world build stadiums 3 times as large as what is being proposed here.
Earlier I shared similar stadiums that are currently being built in NYC (11 major league teams) and Miami (6 major league teams). Let me also add to the list, cities that have recently built very successful soccer stadiums of a similar size: Los Angeles (10 major league teams), Minneapolis (5 major sports teams), DC (7 major league sports teams), and a smaller one Cincinnatti (3 major league sports teams). Click the links, all of these teams draw great support. Why not Boston?
This stadium would be a hit from day one and only gets better looking towards the next generation of young and diverse Bostonians. It makes sense economically, it makes sense culturally, and it makes sense in terms of infrastructure and development of this area in the long term.
I've been a massive fan of the MLS for the past 15 years now and you can't deny that the sport is popular and growing rapidly in the United States, even though the league isn't competing on the world stage (yet) they still attract exciting young players and massive stars because of the standard of living and the marketing opportunities (arguably the best soccer player ever is in the MLS right now). Even right now with the "rankings" the Revs are in, they average 23,000 fans in a football stadium which is not ideal for soccer. The model of success for soccer in the US the past decade is ~20,000 seats close to the city, with access to public transportation and things to do in the surrounding area. So trying to point to global rankings as a measure of success is entirely irrelevant, this team will be popular here and I don't think it's correct to think of it as a small niche. And in any case, the best soccer teams in the world build stadiums 3 times as large as what is being proposed here.
Earlier I shared similar stadiums that are currently being built in NYC (11 major league teams) and Miami (6 major league teams). Let me also add to the list, cities that have recently built very successful soccer stadiums of a similar size: Los Angeles (10 major league teams), Minneapolis (5 major sports teams), DC (7 major league sports teams), and a smaller one Cincinnatti (3 major league sports teams). Click the links, all of these teams draw great support. Why not Boston?
This stadium would be a hit from day one and only gets better looking towards the next generation of young and diverse Bostonians. It makes sense economically, it makes sense culturally, and it makes sense in terms of infrastructure and development of this area in the long term.
Last edited:
The Boston (Everett) stadium is also the exception to those other cities - - it won't cost local taxpayers one red cent AND the developer will pay $100 million to decontaminate the riverfront site.
This is a UNICORN.
If the smokestack operator wants to do the same, I'm all ears..........
Last edited:
Charlie_mta
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2006
- Messages
- 4,159
- Reaction score
- 5,520
For me personally, I honestly do get a bit perturbed at what I see as obstructionism and extreme NIMBYism, especially from people who don't even live near the project. This is, by any metric, a highly valuable and positive project, as outlined by many in the above posts. In contrast, an amusement park would attract a small fraction of the number of people a stadium would, and be fairly worthless for injecting economic vitality and momentum for further development into south Everett. It is so incredibly hard to get anything of any size and importance built in the Boston area, but this proposed stadium project, a good one that would really benefit not only Everett but the metro region, is thankfully well on its way to becoming a reality. And that in itself is a minor miracle. I do respect your opinions on this, but I've personally worked on too many good projects that were sunk by individuals pushing some pretty odd and extraneous objections.