REMEMBER THE NEW STADIUM?

[OttoMets]

I agree about the campus feel (not to the extent of "soulless"). I disagree about vehicle access. Access from 481 (new ramps) would be tons better than what we have today with our on-campus facility. The site would also have adequate space for parking and tailgating. While I love my current tailgating, there are many who insist on the one large parking area for tailgating with a short walk from cars to seat.

You and I probably agree about the current tailgating - it's what we make of it, and good enough for many. (I doubt the "one lot" people go to many games or would change their habits if there were one large lot.)

Anyway, no doubt a Skytop stadium would have plenty of surface parking consolidated in a logical way. But as long as it's reached by two points of access (Skytop Road and a new 481 exit), it's going to be slow. Especially slow because the mode share for auto use would go through the roof; so many people park offsite with the existing facility, but a new stadium would cause nearly everyone who's not a South Campus resident to take a car up there. The two access points would be choked and 481 would back up heavily for every game.

The current Dome location isn't perfect, but it's at least adjacent to the city grid and drivers can fan out in several directions. Skytop would lose this; I think it'd be a nightmare. Plenty of space to park once you've reached the site, but slow to get there and really slow to leave.

 

[Millhouse]

Taking into account walkability is, of course, the only appropriate way to go about developing an attraction meant to draw 50,000 people at a time.

The great irony in the Skytop plan is that all the Central New Yorkers who love the site and aren't interested in walking everywhere would be stuck in epic traffic along with thousands of people who were accustomed to walking partway to the Dome but were forced into cars to access this new isolated site.

It'd be like the State Fair on every football Saturday.

you want walkability, put the stadium in a big parking lot, and let people park all around it

the 50,000 people are going to live all over the place and not live within walking distance

this is the problem with giant committees, some anti-car dork who gets around on a recumbent tricycle with big flags ends up getting in a fight with the guy with scurvy who needs to park next door

all this bullsh!t is not an issue with the stadium that's just fine right where it is

 

[OttoMets]

When Manley was the hoops site, we would park on nearby streets and walk to the arena. With Skytop, if you want to walk, you could park on a street near Manley, or at Manley and walk on the new sidewalks they will build going up the the new stadium. If you don't want to walk, you ride a shuttle from the university or Manley to the stadium. If you want a really short walk from your car, you park at a stadium lot near the new stadium, tailgate, and walk to the stadium.

Manley's a lot closer to those on-street spots than the top of Skytop is (and there are relatively few spots down there), and it's not up a steep hill. It's a full mile (mapmyrun.com) from Lancaster (which has alternate-side parking) and Colvin (which has no parking) to the closest side of the stadium site.

I'd make that walk (I happen to live in the neighborhood and walk or run the same route regularly), but many people wouldn't. People think the current Manley North-to-Dome walk is excessive; covering the same distance up a huge hill won't prove popular.

Shuttles would certainly be part of the transportation management plan, but how effective would they be if Skytop Road is one of two ways for all vehicles to reach the site? I don't know if SU would dedicate a bus lane or significantly widen Skytop Road, but the busses wouldn't be very effective if they're sitting in car traffic.

 

[Jake]

A lot would depend on the configuration of parking lots etc. Currently the Manley Skytop shuttles are designed to get non-students to and from the games and students are left to fend for themselves. If the location was skytop, it would be reversed. The shuttles would be designed to get students to and from the games and everyone else would be left to fend for themselves. A much smaller effort than the current system. As Otto points out, you're not putting shuttles on a two lane road into stadium parking unless you have a bus only lane.

Here's the overarching problem with the Skytop location. It's a non-starter without a complete reconfiguation and construction of an I-481 interchange nearby. That lends itself to two potential issues.

1) $. Right now the state is busy with a billion dollar project to redo I-81, there's no spare change in the couch to do that plus a new 481 interchange.
2) If I-81 is torn down, the amount of traffic on -481 immediately triples...lending more potential traffic issues if a new stadium is put at skytop.

 

[Madbiker]

I agree about the preference for an on-campus site, but a Skytop stadium would effectively be off-campus for the majority of potential student fans and for those of us who enjoy the college atmosphere.

It's a soulless site with terrible vehicular access (with or without an expensive 481 exit), few transit options, and not walkable from anything other than a handful of single-familay residential neighborhoods.

Glad this didn't happen.

I hear you. I would think if they used that site there would have to be investment in road infrastructure to make it more accessible. As far as students, it's not much different than when the games were at Manley and students packed that place.

 

[Orangeyes]

You are not following. I'm sure the deal was great for them. I suspect the deal was terrible for the school despite orange yes's assurances

When you have approval from the top

You and I probably agree about the current tailgating - it's what we make of it, and good enough for many. (I doubt the "one lot" people go to many games or would change their habits if there were one large lot.)

Anyway, no doubt a Skytop stadium would have plenty of surface parking consolidated in a logical way. But as long as it's reached by two points of access (Skytop Road and a new 481 exit), it's going to be slow. Especially slow because the mode share for auto use would go through the roof; so many people park offsite with the existing facility, but a new stadium would cause nearly everyone who's not a South Campus resident to take a car up there. The two access points would be choked and 481 would back up heavily for every game.

The current Dome location isn't perfect, but it's at least adjacent to the city grid and drivers can fan out in several directions. Skytop would lose this; I think it'd be a nightmare. Plenty of space to park once you've reached the site, but slow to get there and really slow to leave.

There would be more than two points of access.

Please remember there was going to be a total reconfiguration of the whole area around Skytop.

The golf course would be taken out and have roads, access, parking etc.

 

[Millhouse]

To all - you have to do simple ROI math. With rates so low, here is a simple illustration:

1. $200 million state grant
2. $200 - $250 million muni bond issuance depending upon 3 below - $1 - $1.5 million in interest carrying costs
3. Up to $100 million in private fundraising like naming rights as 1 example

Ongoing costs are covered by advertising, box, ticket & concessions - multiple event stadium produces more revenue at same time spreads fixed expenses over more events. Because of what we know about past attendance to all the groups who would use the new stadium, it's a very easy ROI calculation with limited initial risk.

Again I state the obvious - Mayor Minor was and is to this day a political minor leaguer who is in over her head. She has made strategic political mistakes with the Gov & Dem party and now has compounded those political mistakes with a major financial mistakes - that would have increased the property taxes revenue for the city. She needs to go.

Yes, it's a good private investment if you can finance 80% of it with other peoples money and collect all the profit

250 million of real resources you spend doesn't magically become 0 because you issue a muni bond. someone has to pay for that tax subsidy.

 

[Millhouse]

When you have approval from the top

There would be more than two points of access.

Please remember there was going to be a total reconfiguration of the whole area around Skytop.

The golf course would be taken out and have roads, access, parking etc.

total reconfigurations cost other people money. other people who might have a say in the matter. someone needs to approve of that

i think people have a tendency to take every expense related to this stadium and divide it by the cost of the stadium. maybe that reconfig is a small percent of the cost of the stadium but it still might be money that the city doesn't have

what's in it for the city or state to do that reconfig?

 

[xc84]

A lot would depend on the configuration of parking lots etc. Currently the Manley Skytop shuttles are designed to get non-students to and from the games and students are left to fend for themselves. If the location was skytop, it would be reversed. The shuttles would be designed to get students to and from the games and everyone else would be left to fend for themselves. A much smaller effort than the current system. As Otto points out, you're not putting shuttles on a two lane road into stadium parking unless you have a bus only lane.

Here's the overarching problem with the Skytop location. It's a non-starter without a complete reconfiguation and construction of an I-481 interchange nearby. That lends itself to two potential issues.

1) $. Right now the state is busy with a billion dollar project to redo I-81, there's no spare change in the couch to do that plus a new 481 interchange.
2) If I-81 is torn down, the amount of traffic on -481 immediately triples...lending more potential traffic issues if a new stadium is put at skytop.

(1) Actually, if they are going to revise 481, it's the perfect time to include this type of change in the overall 81 reconfiguration. (2) Exactly, that's why 481 would be even wider (or have totally independent lanes) near the new retractable roof dome on/off ramps.

 

[cuseinchina]

If the $200 million was not real, then why would Miner oppose it?

very astute observation.

 

[xc84]

total reconfigurations cost other people money. other people who might have a say in the matter. someone needs to approve of that

i think people have a tendency to take every expense related to this stadium and divide it by the cost of the stadium. maybe that reconfig is a small percent of the cost of the stadium but it still might be money that the city doesn't have

what's in it for the city or state to do that reconfig?

Here is the saving grace for people like us who will want a new stadium or at least significant work done on the current stadium. Despite all the protests from complainers, it will get done just like it gets done in every other city despite the complainers who complain about the same things.

 

[Millhouse]

Here is the saving grace for people like us who will want a new stadium or at least significant work done on the current stadium. Despite all the protests from complainers, it will get done just like it gets done in every other city despite the complainers who complain about the same things.

why did you quote my response if you aren't going to respond to it

after much teeth pulling, it's safe to say that orange yes, his merry band of shadowy investors, nancy cantor, and daryl gross were perfectly happy to approve a stadium provided that somebody else agree pay for a total reconfiguration without taking the time to study its costs.

 

[Millhouse]

Here is the saving grace for people like us who will want a new stadium or at least significant work done on the current stadium. Despite all the protests from complainers, it will get done just like it gets done in every other city despite the complainers who complain about the same things.

also if it will get done just like it gets done in every other city, why is everyone so up in arms about miner wanting to know what she's on the hook for?

 

[Millhouse]

very astute observation.

she never said she opposed it.

not her fault that people are too stupid to distinguish between not approving something blindly and opposing it

 

[xc84]

she never said she opposed it.

not her fault that people are too stupid to distinguish between not approving something blindly and opposing it

why didn't she just ignore it if it was not real money that would never materialize? (that's the statement I responded to)

 

[Millhouse]

why didn't she just ignore it if it was not real money that would never materialize? (that's the statement I responded to)

because she would've gotten blamed for being insufficiently enthusiastic just the same

you said she opposed it

 

[Millhouse]

Yes.



No way. A new stadium would be property-tax exempt for at least 30 years.

chakakhan also ignores that muni bonds are subsidized by tax payers all over the country. for a given amount of spending, someone elses taxes go up by the amount of the value of the tax exemption

 

[cuseinchina]

because she would've gotten blamed for being insufficiently enthusiastic just the same

you said she opposed it

that makes no sense. XC84 has it right. If the money was never there for real she would have known that. She also could have pretty easily predicted the community reaction from not supporting the proposed stadium and would have known it just looked petty and spiteful given that the city wasn't being required to put anything up. given that it would have been in her interest to express support for something that wasn't going to happen anyway...that's politics 101 my friend.

It's like when republicans in moderate states express support for the wildly popular higher minimum wage even though it goes against their beliefs - because they know the dems don't have the votes to push it through anyway.

I think there is a saying involving cake

 

[Millhouse]

given that it would have been in her interest to express support

good we agree that she didn't oppose it

 

[chakka3421]

chakakhan also ignores that muni bonds are subsidized by tax payers all over the country. for a given amount of spending, someone elses taxes go up by the amount of the value of the tax exemption

Not the right question but I'll answer - this is how things get built all over the country. Why are you so against Syracuse using the same system that every else uses to get things built in their own states & cities. You need to take your idealism out of the equation because it's not how things get built in our country for public purposes.

Anyway, the right question to ask is if you can issue munis to finance the building of a stadium.

 

[cuseinchina]

good we agree that she didn't oppose it

you are pretty close to delusional.

 

[xc84]

because she would've gotten blamed for being insufficiently enthusiastic just the same

you said she opposed it

Forget about opposing it. I responded to someone who said it wasn't real money and basically, anyone who thought it was is a dunce. So if it was obviously not real money, Minor could have let it play out and let Cuomo, Mahoney, and SU look foolish instead of her looking foolish.

 

[Millhouse]

Forget about opposing it. I responded to someone who said it wasn't real money and basically, anyone who thought it was is a dunce. So if it was obviously not real money, Minor could have let it play out and let Cuomo, Mahoney, and SU look foolish instead of her looking foolish.

which was what she did. she wasn't running around yelling about it. no one has anything concrete about her obstructing this. just general complaints about insufficient support and enthusiasm

 

[sutomcat]

When you have approval from the top

There would be more than two points of access.

Please remember there was going to be a total reconfiguration of the whole area around Skytop.

The golf course would be taken out and have roads, access, parking etc.

They were also going to build a mass transit connection from the main campus to the South campus as part of the plan.

Besides the direct ramps to and from I-481, there are existing connections near the stadium that also could be used, including the I-481 connection at Jamesville Ave, the I-481 connection at Ainsley Drive, the I-81 connection at Brighton (entrance and exit) and the Colvin St entrance to I-81.

These are all used today by many to arrive at and return from games at the Dome; they would just become more convenient in the new location. The Harrison/Almond exit/entrance would also be helpful, though not as much as they are today with the current location of the Dome.

Getting away from the hospital complex and main campus would in and of itself by a huge improvement for people driving to the games. There is too much going on right now in that area now on game days.

The relatively small number of people who walk to the games can makea a longer walk (for most), take the mass transit options, ride a bike or get a ride/drive a car to the games. Resolving the current major problems with parking, tailgating, egress to the main medical complex in CNY...all these things make the Drumlins location a better location than the current location.

That being said, you still need money, a lot of it, to make this happen. The biggest drawback to this location is that I think it is unlikely SU is going to see much government help building a stadium on campus (even the South campus). The same applies to the Inner Harbor. Rightly or wrongly, for the government to pony up serious coin, the stadium is going to need to be located in a part of the city that needs desperately need economic development, an area no developer would touch otherwise (i.e. no Inner Harbor). This is based on recent comments from Joanie Mahoney, who should know more about this than anyone on this board.

Anyway, I think the play here is for SU to study renovation plans and go in that direction. If someone is willing to build them a new stadium, you take it gratefully. If not, you do what is needed to make the Carrier Dome work long term and save money for its replacement at some point in the long term future. Sounds to me like SU is doing the right things and is on the right path.

 

[OttoMets]

When you have approval from the top

There would be more than two points of access.

Please remember there was going to be a total reconfiguration of the whole area around Skytop.

The golf course would be taken out and have roads, access, parking etc.

I'm counting:

1) Skytop Road;

2) The requested I-481 interchange connecting through Drumlins East up to the back side of Skytop. [Obviously necessary for the project, if unapproved and unfunded.]

I can't imagine where another access point would come from; SU couldn't run any new streets through the driving range end of Drumlins - the hill is too steep. There wouldn't be any connections on the west end of the site, as there's a neighborhood there. And SU's own buildings on the north side of the hill preclude any street construction to complement Skytop coming up from Colvin.