Bye Bye Chivas USA, hello nightmare?

[Da_Aisijimo_Gou]

Revere is the single hardest place to get to in all of metro Boston, and Everett would be next on the list. Soccer is not an urban sport in the USA as it is in Europe, that's basketball. It's a suburban sport, and that is the primary fan base. Any new stadium needs to be car friendly from metro-west and the south shore.

If you put it in Boston proper, the only spots that could make any sense are (a) South Boston Waterfront (b) Allston/Brighton or (c) West Roxbury somewhere close to 128.

a) and b) Too pricy now, opportunity was lost 3-5 years ago along with East Cambridge; c) Doubtful without MBTA convenience.
Revere's not easy to get too from west and south, but it's much better now than in years past: highway and MBTA alike. Boston's also not a typical US city. As you know, people actually live in the city; well-to-do ex-surburbanites, middle income, and less so alike. MBTA combined with highway access is a tough combo, but how many people actually go to Gillette for Revs' games from the city itself and northern suburbs now? Kraft's a selfish oaf, and will likely continue using Gillette to the sport's and MLS' detriment.

 

[HuskyHawk]

a) and b) Too pricy now, opportunity was lost 3-5 years ago along with East Cambridge; c) Doubtful without MBTA convenience.
Revere's not easy to get too from west and south, but it's much better now than in years past: highway and MBTA alike. Boston's also not a typical US city. As you know, people actually live in the city; well-to-do ex-surburbanites, middle income, and less so alike. MBTA combined with highway access is a tough combo, but how many people actually go to Gillette for Revs' games from the city itself and northern suburbs now? Kraft's a selfish oaf, and will likely continue using Gillette to the sport's and MLS' detriment.

But to my benefit, since I live 15 minutes away, and the same is true for the majority of fans I suspect. As for Revere, it's a dump and I wouldn't take my family there for anything. The whole area east of Boston (Eastie, Chelsea, Revere, Everett) is a crime-ridden dumpster-fire, and since you have to go through Boston to get there, it's brutal for most of the people in metro Boston. Yes, people live in Boston, mostly the very wealthy lawyers, doctors and finance folks who work downtown, college kids and those who recently graduated, gritty blue collar folks in other neighborhoods (like my old neighborhood in Southie) and the very poor. None of them are the target market for the Revs. It's a bad location for the stadium if they ever build it, and land is expensive as hell.

 

[ZooCougar]

Why? Some of the fan base may/will change, but it's a joke to suggest a stadium closer to Boston (Revere in Boston itself, Somerville, etc.) with MBTA access nearby would not attract fans. Some of the suburban crowd, especially south of the city and around Providence would probably go away. On the other hand, Boston itself as well as neighboring towns have their own soccer fans and strong, large ethnic groups. Unfortunately, the blow hard owner Kraft will dikk around as long as he can get away with it with MLS and probably until someone else builds a stadium. Where? Who the phark knows, but the Revs definitely should not play in Gillette Stadium.

Because I look at the angst here and on Bigsoccer regarding a downtown stadium. Lots of Revs fans are saying that they won't even bother going to games if they move into the city.

I think the club will get sold before Kraft fronts anymore of his own money for a new stadium.

 

[ZooCougar]

Revere is the single hardest place to get to in all of metro Boston, and Everett would be next on the list. Soccer is not an urban sport in the USA as it is in Europe, that's basketball. It's a suburban sport, and that is the primary fan base. Any new stadium needs to be car friendly from metro-west and the south shore.

If you put it in Boston proper, the only spots that could make any sense are (a) South Boston Waterfront (b) Allston/Brighton or (c) West Roxbury somewhere close to 128.

It just depends on which city. In Portland it made sense to have a downtown stadium. NYC needs a stadium in the 5 boroughs. Other places, a stadium outside of the city makes more sense.

It just sounds to me like you will alienate the existing fanbase if you move the Revs too far away from where they are now.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

Revere is the single hardest place to get to in all of metro Boston, and Everett would be next on the list. Soccer is not an urban sport in the USA as it is in Europe, that's basketball. It's a suburban sport, and that is the primary fan base. Any new stadium needs to be car friendly from metro-west and the south shore.

If you put it in Boston proper, the only spots that could make any sense are (a) South Boston Waterfront (b) Allston/Brighton or (c) West Roxbury somewhere close to 128.

Lived in West Roxbury for a bit. No land there. Would havet obee offof US 1 in Dedham somewhere, and that has no T service and limited rain (Dedham Corp Center); but, traffic would bury US 1 and the locals, especially retailers, woudnolt liekth at

a) and b) Too pricy now, opportunity was lost 3-5 years ago along with East Cambridge; c) Doubtful without MBTA convenience.
Revere's not easy to get too from west and south, but it's much better now than in years past: highway and MBTA alike. Boston's also not a typical US city. As you know, people actually live in the city; well-to-do ex-surburbanites, middle income, and less so alike. MBTA combined with highway access is a tough combo, but how many people actually go to Gillette for Revs' games from the city itself and northern suburbs now? Kraft's a selfish oaf, and will likely continue using Gillette to the sport's and MLS' detriment.

Lots of folks I know in Boston believe that Kraft is supporting the 2022 Summer Olympic bid so that he can get someone else to build a soccer stadium for him (main stadium would be downsized after & converted to be a soccer stadium, see West Ham's new stadium in London).

 

[HuskyHawk]

It just depends on which city. In Portland it made sense to have a downtown stadium. NYC needs a stadium in the 5 boroughs. Other places, a stadium outside of the city makes more sense.

It just sounds to me like you will alienate the existing fanbase if you move the Revs too far away from where they are now.

That's my take anyway. If you go, the crowd is 70% suburban, white soccer moms and dads with kids. They aren't fighting traffic to get into Boston, paying $50 to park, potentially negotiating an unsafe area (Revere, Chelsea...). There are other locations that work, but I think they need to be outside the city.

Portland and KC are both so different than Boston. Both are much smaller. They both have way more space and in KC's case, the park isn't in the city anyway. The area where they built the stadium is damned near in Basehor (where my best friend from L School is from). That's even less urban than where Gillette is. It's similar in some respects to where the Revs play now, minus the stadium itself.

 

[ZooCougar]

That's my take anyway. If you go, the crowd is 70% suburban, white soccer moms and dads with kids. They aren't fighting traffic to get into Boston, paying $50 to park, potentially negotiating an unsafe area (Revere, Chelsea...). There are other locations that work, but I think they need to be outside the city.

Portland and KC are both so different than Boston. Both are much smaller. They both have way more space and in KC's case, the park isn't in the city anyway. The area where they built the stadium is damned near in Basehor (where my best friend from L School is from). That's even less urban than where Gillette is. It's similar in some respects to where the Revs play now, minus the stadium itself.

That area is pretty built up now, not really urban but more or less suburban. I ride my bike through Basehor all the time! Basehor seems like it is in the sticks. Sporting Park is really only about 20-25 minutes from Lawrence.

 

[HuskyHawk]

That area is pretty built up now, not really urban but more or less suburban. I ride my bike through Basehor all the time! Basehor seems like it is in the sticks. Sporting Park is really only about 20-25 minutes from Lawrence.

Yeah, I had no idea that's where it was until I looked it up. If it existed when I was in L-school I might have gone to some games (although Lawrence has plenty of distractions anyway, and I had tickets for basketball and football all three years). KCK is such a dump, it's nice that they have this to help bring parts of it back. Basehor was a farm town according to my friend, but it seems the suburbs are close to reaching it.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

That's my take anyway. If you go, the crowd is 70% suburban, white soccer moms and dads with kids. They aren't fighting traffic to get into Boston, paying $50 to park, potentially negotiating an unsafe area (Revere, Chelsea...). There are other locations that work, but I think they need to be outside the city.

Portland and KC are both so different than Boston. Both are much smaller. They both have way more space and in KC's case, the park isn't in the city anyway. The area where they built the stadium is damned near in Basehor (where my best friend from L School is from). That's even less urban than where Gillette is. It's similar in some respects to where the Revs play now, minus the stadium itself.

I have never been to KC; but, I have been told downtown is not as nice or as big as downtown Boston. Plus, Boston has both a subway network and a commuter rail network, which makes it easier for suburban families to catch a game in town. KC does not, so I can see the need to have KCs' stadium it in the burbs with easy highway access.

Before Gillette was built in Foxborough and even before talk of moving the Pats to Hartford or Providence, there was talk of building a new football stadium in the Seaport district before it got big by the cruise ship terminal. NIMBY's shot it down. A new Fenway was also targeted for the area, except closer to South Station, which would have been awesome (think the SF Giants stadium); but, McCourt lost his bid for the Sox (and got the Dodgers instead) and that idea died. The Seaport has since boomed and no way can anyone afford to build a soccer stadium there now. Somerville was begging for the stadium to be built next to the new Assembly Square development, which includes an new subways station; but, not sure if there is any land left now. The other location is in in Revere at either the horse track or the old dog track right on the water. Yes, parts of Revere can be a dump; but, a location on the water adjacent to the subway and near the airport is very good. Even without the casino that may now go to Everett, such a venue could serve as a catalyst to make that area nice along the lines of Jersey City (awesome along the Hudson, less so on the other side of the hill). Both of those locations would be better than talk of where Boston's Olympic stadium would be - in between Roxbury and Southie in an old rail yard, which would be isolated as it is surrounded by I-93 on one side and active rail lines on the other. The land there is cheap, while building over the highway and rail lines to connect it with Boston would be expensive, and it would be at least partially publically financed due to the Olympics. It’s a developer’s dream. Kraft is a developer.

In 2014, the four teams with the lowest attendance are Chivas (7,000), San Jose (14,900), Colorado (15,000), and Chicago (16,000). Chivas has unique (hopefully) issues. San Jose is getting a new soccer stadium next year. Unlike all of Chicago’s other pro sport venues, which are in the city and have subway access, Chicago's pitch was built in an industrial, inner suburb with no mass transit connections (one has to take a shuttle bus from Midway Airport) and no direct highway connections. No wonder the Fire do not draw well. Denver’s pro teams are all downtown, too, except for the Rapids, who stadium is built somewhat near a high to the east of the city (which itself is a problem as most of Denver’s population lies along a north/south axis from Denver, not east/west) on an old re-purposed military base with no mass transit service. A good counter example is DC United. They are not the powerhouse they used to be and are located in a dump of a stadium; but, it’s in the city with easy access to the subway and thus they draw 17K, which is average.

Thus, I think the lesson is that if the city has a thriving downtown with public transit, the city’s MLS stadium needs to be downtown. If not, then the stadium should be in the burns next to a highway and preferably part of a larger development. Boston clearly has one of the better downtowns in the country, thus, the Revs should be in the city.

 

[ZooCougar]

I drove through Denver this summer and went by Dick's Sporting Goods Park. The traffic is atrocious.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

I drove through Denver this summer and went by Dick's Sporting Goods Park. The traffic is atrocious.

I drove from downtown Denver to the airport (DIA) a few years back and saw a 'Welcome to Kansas' sign before I made it to the terminal

 

[HuskyHawk]

I have never been to KC; but, I have been told downtown is not as nice or as big as downtown Boston. Plus, Boston has both a subway network and a commuter rail network, which makes it easier for suburban families to catch a game in town. KC does not, so I can see the need to have KCs' stadium it in the burbs with easy highway access.

Before Gillette was built in Foxborough and even before talk of moving the Pats to Hartford or Providence, there was talk of building a new football stadium in the Seaport district before it got big by the cruise ship terminal. NIMBY's shot it down. A new Fenway was also targeted for the area, except closer to South Station, which would have been awesome (think the SF Giants stadium); but, McCourt lost his bid for the Sox (and got the Dodgers instead) and that idea died. The Seaport has since boomed and no way can anyone afford to build a soccer stadium there now. Somerville was begging for the stadium to be built next to the new Assembly Square development, which includes an new subways station; but, not sure if there is any land left now. The other location is in in Revere at either the horse track or the old dog track right on the water. Yes, parts of Revere can be a dump; but, a location on the water adjacent to the subway and near the airport is very good. Even without the casino that may now go to Everett, such a venue could serve as a catalyst to make that area nice along the lines of Jersey City (awesome along the Hudson, less so on the other side of the hill). Both of those locations would be better than talk of where Boston's Olympic stadium would be - in between Roxbury and Southie in an old rail yard, which would be isolated as it is surrounded by I-93 on one side and active rail lines on the other. The land there is cheap, while building over the highway and rail lines to connect it with Boston would be expensive, and it would be at least partially publically financed due to the Olympics. It’s a developer’s dream. Kraft is a developer.

In 2014, the four teams with the lowest attendance are Chivas (7,000), San Jose (14,900), Colorado (15,000), and Chicago (16,000). Chivas has unique (hopefully) issues. San Jose is getting a new soccer stadium next year. Unlike all of Chicago’s other pro sport venues, which are in the city and have subway access, Chicago's pitch was built in an industrial, inner suburb with no mass transit connections (one has to take a shuttle bus from Midway Airport) and no direct highway connections. No wonder the Fire do not draw well. Denver’s pro teams are all downtown, too, except for the Rapids, who stadium is built somewhat near a high to the east of the city (which itself is a problem as most of Denver’s population lies along a north/south axis from Denver, not east/west) on an old re-purposed military base with no mass transit service. A good counter example is DC United. They are not the powerhouse they used to be and are located in a dump of a stadium; but, it’s in the city with easy access to the subway and thus they draw 17K, which is average.

Thus, I think the lesson is that if the city has a thriving downtown with public transit, the city’s MLS stadium needs to be downtown. If not, then the stadium should be in the burns next to a highway and preferably part of a larger development. Boston clearly has one of the better downtowns in the country, thus, the Revs should be in the city.

Nobody from the suburbs will take commuter rail to sporting events. They drive. Sure it is great for folks in the city (I lived in Southie and now in Franklin) to be able to take the subway, but nobody, and I mean not a single soul, is going to come from Northboro or Marlboro, or Westborough, or Wrentham or Plymouth or Acton or Medway or whatever, in to Boston on public transit. It doesn't work. Commuter rail doesn't run reliably outside of the commute hours and is jammed during commute hours. Since those suburbanites are 75% of the current and potential fan base, the stadium must be in a driveable location, which means west of downtown Boston. My town has two stations and I'd never even consider using it to go to say a Celtics or Red Sox game, and neither does anyone else. Most suburban towns don't even have that kind of access to the commuter trains. For me to get to Everett or Revere that way is nearly two hours each way by the time you make the switches.

Agree with you it needs to be someplace with complementary development. Near a train line would be nice too.

 

[whaler11]

Somebody will always be in the bottom third. Attendance up 12%. Everybody would like a soccer only stadium, but I'll say now, if they build it in Boston, or worse, north and east of Boston (Everett for example), I'll never go to a game again. That's the challenge, most of the long time fans live out in the suburbs, not in Boston, and lots of them are from RI, Fall River etc. A new venue on the same property would be good, but I can see why it is hard for the Krafts to justify as revenues wouldn't increase much if at all.

I married into one of those huge
immigrant Fall River families.

The entire street in Swansea will have people sitting in garages listening to soccer on the radio but they would sooner fly to the moon than go to Gillette.

Pawtucket would be a better spot for a stadium than Boston.

 

[UCFBfan]

I drove from downtown Denver to the airport (DIA) a few years back and saw a 'Welcome to Kansas' sign before I made it to the terminal

I remember landing in Denver from Hartford a few years back and looking out the window and seeing flat land. Almost thought we HAD landed in Kansas. It wasn't until we got on the highway to drive to Denver that we got a clear look at the Rockies. I also saw the Rapids soccer stadium and it is literally in the middle of nowhere. Not a shock that folks don't head to games out there.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

Nobody from the suburbs will take commuter rail to sporting events. They drive. Sure it is great for folks in the city (I lived in Southie and now in Franklin) to be able to take the subway, but nobody, and I mean not a single soul, is going to come from Northboro or Marlboro, or Westborough, or Wrentham or Plymouth or Acton or Medway or whatever, in to Boston on public transit. It doesn't work. Commuter rail doesn't run reliably outside of the commute hours and is jammed during commute hours. Since those suburbanites are 75% of the current and potential fan base, the stadium must be in a driveable location, which means west of downtown Boston. My town has two stations and I'd never even consider using it to go to say a Celtics or Red Sox game, and neither does anyone else. Most suburban towns don't even have that kind of access to the commuter trains. For me to get to Everett or Revere that way is nearly two hours each way by the time you make the switches.

Agree with you it needs to be someplace with complementary development. Near a train line would be nice too.

Well, we all agree that the Revs need a new, soccer specific stadium. Disregarding the facts of having the stadium built in the burbs or in Boston, it will be built in Boston. I honestly believe Kraft's initial first choice was to have it in Foxborough next to Gillette; but, I have heard there are a lot of bad feelings between Kraft and the town of Foxoborough after his attempt to get one of the state's casino licenses after the resident voted it down. Also, Kraft wants someone else to pony up a good chunk of the money for it. After all, the guy is a billionaire and wanted to use Federal TIGER funds to build a $9 million private pedestrian bridge over US 1 so that he could expand Patriot's place (office space) across the street in 2009. Only Boston has the money that Kraft. Somerville and Revere have been begging for the stadium; but, neither have the money to help pay for it. Thus, it will be in Boston, possibly as part of the 2024 Summer Olympic bid.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I married into one of those huge
immigrant Fall River families.

The entire street in Swansea will have people sitting in garages listening to soccer on the radio but they would sooner fly to the moon than go to Gillette.

Pawtucket would be a better spot for a stadium than Boston.

That's the real point. Could a stadium work in the city, or north-east of Boston? Yes. But, the vast majority of people who go to games now won't travel there, just as folks from Swansea won't come to Gillette. Pawtucket is teeming with immigrants. The Portuguese base across RI and into Bristol Cty. is also huge for soccer. Milford is packed with Brazilians. Then there are the middle class soccer families, which are everywhere west of Boston. None of those folks outside of 128 are driving to Revere. Different folks will, but the team would need to start over and would lose a huge part of its ticket buying base.

I've argued it needs to stay south of the city because the Bristol County and RI areas are a huge fan base with loads of immigrants, and NH, coastal ME are not. Even someplace like Braintree or Quincy would make the drive tolerable.