Report: Wife Scratched Tiger Woods' Face, Chased His SUV; Update: Police Unable To Interview Couple Today
Senate Report: Bush Missed Chance To Catch Bin Laden
Bloomberg Spent $102 Million On Campaign
Two Doors Fall Off AirTrain At JFK
Dogs Rescued From Puppy Mills And Shelters Arrive In L.I.
It looks like New York City and the Jets could host the Super Bowl as early 2010 if the stadium gets built. After the conclusion of owners meetings, NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue sent a letter (.PDF file) to Mike Bloomberg and George Pataki informing them of the possiblity of hosting the Super Bowl. New York has yet to formally apply as a venue for the game, but the idea was well received when Jets owner Woody Johnson presented it.
The Super Bowl are already has venues through 2008 (stadium names subject to change, obviously) - Jacksonville's Alltel Stadium is slated to host in 2005, followed by Detroit's Ford Field in 2006, Miami's Pro Player Stadium in 2007 and Arizona's still unnamed stadium. The Jets stadium, assuming it gets built, is tentatively scheduled to be finished for the 2009 season. Because of the unique situation in New York (read 2012 Olympics), the NFL is considering waiving the 2-year waiting period for stadiums before they can host the Super Bowl, which would give New York Super Bowl XLIV.
Gothamist wishes that all Super Bowls would take place in outdoor cold weather venues and that if it comes to New York, they would open up that retractible roof. Another idea floating around is to have the game at Giants Stadium if it could be improved to host the January game. That may be unlikely unless the NFL waives an outdoor Super Bowl rule that dates back to 1966. In the past, they have mentioned FedEx Field as another possibility for a cold-weather game. Whatever the NFL does, it's hard to imagine either local football team in the Super Bowl right now, so we might as well imagine a game in the New York area. Scalpers would make so much money! Think of the boon to the local economy. Almost as good as all those Republican dollars.
Related: Curbed on how Madison Square Garden owner, the Dolan family, is leading the anti-Jets Stadium push.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Whenever these topics come up -- about building a West Side stadium and about NYC hosting the Olympics -- I always feel compelled to say NO in thunder. These ideas are about as good as NYC hosting the GOP convention. Even if it means I have to get into bed with the interests of MSG and the Dolans, I will. There are too many needs with much higher priorities for the city than concentating resources on the faux-glamour of sports fields. One such need, for example, would be protecting the small businesses in DUMBO that have been kicked out of their really cool loft spaces in order to make room for more overpriced housing.
gp - this is well understood, but generally speaking it's hard to argue against economic development by saying that the funds are better used for social programs.
In the end, projects like this should generate their own revenue and expand the economy - creating opportunties that did not exist before. Second, because of that likely economic expansion, more money should be available to the goverment for social programs. Third, it's unlikely a politician would ever directly cancel or cut back a social program to fund a football stadium.
I'm not saying that it never goes wrong... sometimes these stadium deals really ARE that bad... but I am saying that the government can help these sort of things get off the ground without trading off for social programs if they do it correctly.
A potential Super Bowl adds a hell of an economic incentive to building this stadium. Yes, the location still sucks for traffic access, and I'd rather see a Super Bowl at Giants Stadium (that plan was royally screwed up), but it would be an interesting opportunity.
As a Canadian, we hold our yearly CFL Championship game outdoors in November. -40 doesn't dampen the party, whether in Edmonton, Winnipeg, or Regina. Contradicting the NFL braintrust, cold weather games add to the week long parties and don't stop the sold out overflow crowds from being gouged at all.
The economic benefit argument doesn't quite cut it, though. That chunk of land could be used for any number of things, most of which would extend significant economic benefit to the city. Why football? Even Jets spokesmen have conceded that their team has a primarily suburban following. Their stadium, and their economic development priorities, feel like an intrusion in the city. (And this is why those polls showed that a majority of nyc people would rather not build the stadium, even at zero cost to the public).
A basketball stadium in Brooklyn makes some sense. People play basketball here, we gather around street games, and a lot of kids (for better or worse) have dreams tied up in it. But football? When you go to the park, you see more people playing soccer than football. Yo, how about a soccer stadium!
ozz- Good points. Why should football or any sport be treated like any other business? If we're to pay for a business venue that brings money and jobs in to Manhattan (not that we should, but IF), why not choose an industry that makes a lot of money? There seems to be a lack of insight about where the money is in this world. It's in banking, insurance, telecoms, oil, auto manufacturing. Sports?
Hey, here's an idea. I want to start a business. Maybe the city will build me a building. I promise to employ lots of minimum wage workers, oh, I mean "create jobs".