discusssion question

[knen]

So there's all this hoopla about the westside stadium...here's my question: why not utilize the more aptly described as "wasteland" waterfront queens (and maybe even brooklyn) areas for sports/olympic related development. I just bought a little house in Long Island City so obviously I would be thrilled to see development in the area...but even without my bias, it just seems to make more sense. The traffic would be easier to handle there and there are inbound traffic patterns already (LIE, the two bridges, BQE). There is more underdeveloped land. It's super close to midtown so going to an event there is a lot less of a trek than say, a Mets home game or the US Open. I mean unless you happen to live in the west village to the west 60's (in which case you're probably opposed to the stadium anyway) it's a shorter trip to queensboro plaza than to the javits center. If the olympics were really to be here (and as a former SF resident I think it is ten times more likely that they would be here than there) the tv cameras would have the awesome backdrop of the skyline if they were in queens, whereas if they were on the westside they would be too close to most of the skyline to really capture it. Ok that last part might be an exageration, but still!!! Is there so reason 'm missing as to why the westside is the be all and end location idea for a stadium? Is a MANHATTAN SHOULD HAVE THIS sort of thing?

[RJMNG]