Okay, in a spirit of harmony, I wanted to share something that I think everyone on this thread can have a good chuckle over.
At the election results watch party at Isaac Hunter’s tonight, I bumped into one of the fringe candidates running for one of the seats. So when I got home I went to check out her campaign website and I came across this gem:
“Thoughts about Downtown South project … if we want to be innovative, what if we renovate Carter-Finley to install retractable stadium seating that would pull back and allow for a major league soccer field. It would be an investment, but cost substantly [sic] less than building a brand new stadium. Just a thought.”
And that, where a candidate used the phrase “Just a thought” on the platform section of their own website, was probably the point where I almost asphyxiated. The retractable seating would pull back, y’all. Truly an idea we can all agree is horrible.
Obviously this candidate didn’t win, or even come remotely close to winning, but you can see why I’m leery of having politicians involved in making stadium decisions.
Seats don’t move at Ford Field. They are temporary bleachers setup for basketball configuration. This is also how most football stadiums adapt to one-off basketball setups.
Football and soccer shouldn’t co-exist in a stadium for the simple reason of the maintenance of the grass from overuse and the different lines painted on the field.
Right, those are two completely different fields. Check out the video of the conversion for this weekend’s game! Pretty elaborate process for just 1 game.
I thought I read that at Ford the risers pulled out from under the fixed football seats and then chairs were brought in. It was an innovative designed intended to provide a better experience than the temporary bleachers they use at say the Carrier Dome. Am I mistaken?
I thought everyone knew that multi-sport stadiums were a bad idea hence all the mid-20th century NFL/MLB football/baseball stadiums being completely replaced by single sport stadiums this decade (Raiders moving to Las Vegas means by 2020 there’s not a single one left). Inferior spectator experience and horrendously expensive to maintain the convertible infrastructure.
The City Council Agenda for this Tuesday Oct. 15 has info. concerning the Soccer Feasibility Study . It has been recommended to spend $ 100,000 for the study with City / County each paying $ 50,000 .
I’m of the mind that the Downtown South & the South Saunders parcel projects have a dependency on each other. Having both bookends in that mile will activate the parcels in between and elevate the existing residential neighborhoods to the east and west of the corridor.
I disagree, in so much as, I don’t see either being dependent upon the other. Downtown South could suffer if S Saunders isn’t built but I think it will just be more suburban/auto-centric were that to happen. S Saunders is going to be extremely walkable to the vast majority of downtown and especially the warehouse district. I think they will complement each other nicely but downtown South is basically going to be North Hills for a long time, extremely car dependent.
This is interesting. I actually assumed they might be competing rather than complimentary. Neither one is downtown and they’re both building office and residential. I think from a user perspective they would be compliments but what about for the developers and financers?
Color me skeptical that Raleigh can absorb all these proposals in the near future. I’d be happy to be wrong, though.
If the soccer stadium was time sensitive, the county and Raleigh won’t take action until they do a full $100,000 study first specifically related to the soccer stadium project. This will take until early to mid 2020.
. I think we can all breathe a sigh of relief that individual was not elected.