Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="OttoMets, post: 1659121, member: 716"] Eh, I know he mentioned sight lines, but I don't think that really matters. (For what it's worth, with all the shallow rock on the back nine, a 175' foot stadium up there would be visible from a lot of directions, including most of those close-in DeWitt neighborhoods and a big swath of Meadowbrook neighborhoods.) But of course the main NIMBY gripes -- legitimate or not -- would involve traffic and noise, as they always do. Because a stadium on Skytop would generate at least 150% more car trips on low-capacity neighborhood streets on gamedays than the current arrangement does. Also, regarding opposition to athletic projects, a couple of points: First, there wasn't organized or widespread opposition to the projects listed above. Though the IPF is an ugly building, it doesn't generate any additional problems for the neighborhood. When SU advanced plans for Dome construction at Skytop in the late '70s, the Outer Comstock association did make its voice heard. This contributed to SU's placement of the Dome at the Archbold site. Since that time, Skytop has gained a lot of interested neighbors, which brings me to the second point - most of the areas shandeezy circled on the map were unpopulated when those athletic facilities were built. Big developments of tract housing, along with some wealthier areas (Applecross/Steinway), have cropped up in the last couple decades. Right or wrong, they'd pursue every legal avenue to prevent construction of any large trip generator on Skytop. I don't agree with their rationale, but those NIMBYs exist in numbers, more so than they did ten or thirty years ago, and that's part of the reason why SU won't build a stadium up there. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?