Location

[Neutral Zone Trap]

A simple question for those of you who have been around a little longer.

The Colorado Rockies moved to New jersey in 1982, and became the Devils that we love

What I'd like to know is, who was the dumbass that decided the location of the arena in which the Devils would play?

To me, logic would say that you'd put the arena in or near the states lagest populated area, with easy access, from both independent or public transport.

I would have thought that the ideal area would have been central Jersey, perhaps close to North Brunswick or Metuchen?

Edited May 18, 2006 by Neutral Zone Trap

[sammyk]

I don't know the complete history but the arena was the last of the major structures built at the Meadowlands. First came the racetrack, then Giants Stadium. So there was already a presence of sports facilities and putting the arena there probably made good sense at the time.

Now why they chose that site for the track and stadium in the first place is a very good question! To be fair though, both those facilities were successful...well I'm not certain about the racetrack.

[HellOnICE]

If you research back far enough, you can actually find articles talking about the possibility of the Devils, Nets, Rangers and Knicks all playing at this brand new state of the art sports complex.

[peteyvegas]

They thought New Yorkers would come flooding through the Lincoln Tunnel. With the convention center and the hotels, they were convinced they would steal thunder from the Javitz and the overly expensive midtown hotels. And with that being the "center" of New Jerseys' known universe, it would be a perfect location.

[M.]

I don't know the complete history but the arena was the last of the major structures built at the Meadowlands. First came the racetrack, then Giants Stadium. So there was already a presence of sports facilities and putting the arena there probably made good sense at the time.

Now why they chose that site for the track and stadium in the first place is a very good question! To be fair though, both those facilities were successful...well I'm not certain about the racetrack.

FYI

The Meadowlands Ractrack is one of the premier harness ractracks in North America. It is has the top races and the top purses in the sport of harness racing. It is very successful in harness, but not so much in flats.

[sammyk]

FYI

The Meadowlands Ractrack is one of the premier harness ractracks in North America. It is has the top races and the top purses in the sport of harness racing. It is very successful in harness, but not so much in flats.

That is what I thought but wasn't sure (about its level of success) as I don't pay much attention to it. How often do they have races there? Seems only the arena didn't truly succeed there.

[NewarkDevil5]

Please don't get me started on this topic.

[MantaRay]

the Meadowlands was origninally built to lore the Rangers. Thank Odin for Dr. McMullen.

[BlueSkirt]

probably 'cuz the land was cheap, being a swamp & former landfill.

everything comes down to $$$.

[MantaRay]

probably 'cuz the land was cheap, being a swamp & former landfill.

everything comes down to $$$.

And its easy access from the Lincoln Tunnel

[M.]

That is what I thought but wasn't sure (about its level of success) as I don't pay much attention to it. How often do they have races there? Seems only the arena didn't truly succeed there.

The Meadowlands has Harness meets year round. With the exception of a period from like late Sept- Nov when they bring the flats in for a Winter Meet. There is live racing usually from Wed-Sun.

It's all being here, it's what your soul understands. It's all about being here, the Meadowlands.

Anyway, as you might guess, the only thing I enjoy more than hockey, is horse racing.

I wouldn't say the arena wasn't a success. For it's era, it did a great job. Housed professional teams, college teams, mutiple events concerts, etc... It's just people want fancier shiner newer arenas so they can pay more money, if they ever actually go there for any reason.

Edited May 18, 2006 by M.

[Satans Hockey]

When the Meadowlands was first built there was suppose to be a new Yankee Stadium built there as well but that fell through.

[Neutral Zone Trap]

Please don't get me started on this topic.

Please ND5, let me Know you're opinion.

From what I've read, the Meadowlands was created for the poeple of NYC, for their convenience, Satans Child said that there was a possibility of a new stadium being built for the Yankee$ but it fell through.

It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of Jersey folk are a little pissed off that the New YORK Jets and the New YORK Giants play in Jersey but won't change the names of the respective teams.

Wouldn't it be poetic justice if, when the Nets finally move to Brooklyn, that they will still be called the New JERSEY Nets?

Perhaps then maybe New Yorkers would then realize how Jersey folk feel, and that New York as fascinating a city that it is, is not the be all and end all of everything.

I'm happy that the New arena ( I'll call it the Devillands) is in Newark, a lot of people are still dubious about the crime rate, but if you look at what happened in Baltimore after the Ravens new stadium, and the development that complimented the stadium, it is a vastly improved area, and the crime rate has virtually disappeared.

[sammyk]

Please ND5, let me Know you're opinion.

It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of Jersey folk are a little pissed off that the New YORK Jets and the New YORK Giants play in Jersey but won't change the names of the respective teams.

Wouldn't it be poetic justice if, when the Nets finally move to Brooklyn, that they will still be called the New JERSEY Nets?

Yes, I hope ND5 does share his opinion! The history of these things usually interests me.

NZT, they would NEVER call something in NY as 'New Jersey'...the incompetent boobery of NJ allows this to happen. It's a shame but no one seems to care. One can say hey let's just kick them out if they want to be in NY so bad but the state probably loses a ton of revenue if they left.

[NewarkDevil5]

The Meadowlands was conceptualized in the late 60s when New Jersey's cities were suffering supreme population loss as was New York City (which nearly declared bankruptcy at the time), Atlantic City had recently hosted the Democratic National Convention in 1964 showing the world the seediest part of the state, the state in general was at a low point in self respect and it was an idea to essentially get the state some face time on a national stage. It was a good idea for what it was at the time and its done the job it set out to do. Incidentally, Newark tried to get the state to build the project there, but they said it was too dangerous and people wouldn't go. Newark had actually tried to get multiple different projects started at the time, none but UMDNJ ever reached fruition and that only reached fruition because it started before the riots.

Here's a link to a few of them:

http://pubadmin.newark.rutgers.edu/Reinven...wark/arenas.htm

I could've made this a full fledged rant and gone on forever about it but frankly I'm just not in the mood for it at the moment.

Edited May 19, 2006 by NewarkDevil5

[Triumph]

Well, one thing that has been demonstrated is that arenas and stadiums are rarely an economic benefit - it's a break-even or net loss situation for a city or state that pays for most of an arena or stadium.

In the 1970s it was the trend around the United States to build arenas and stadiums outside the city, because I think the presumed clientele would be families. The Capitals' arena was in Landover, MD, I think Atlanta Fulton County Stadium was well outside the city of Atlanta, Cleveland's Gund Arena was outside Cleveland, and there are other examples which I can't think of (Foxboro?). Since the country was de-urbanizing, it was thought people wouldn't want to battle city traffic and urban decay to attend a sporting event. Satans Child mentions Yankee Stadium - for years it was thought that people wouldn't go to Yankee Stadium because of its location and Steinbrenner was constantly threatening to move the team to New Jersey. Since the ticket-buying public has shifted from suburban families to a more single male - corporate demographic, the trend has been to bring stadiums and arenas back into the city where these people often work and/or live, and can socialize afterwards.

I don't think the state of New Jersey could have predicted this when it located the Meadowlands Arena. I also think Central Jersey has built up a great deal in the last 20 years - another thing which while could have been anticipated, would not have seriously impacted the arena location. The one thing the Arena does have going for it is that it is close to everything and far away from everywhere - that is to say, transportation in and out is not that difficult by car. 30 years later, the Meadowlands looks like a sad joke - but I can't fault the thinking.

Edited May 19, 2006 by Triumph

[NewarkDevil5]

The reasoning made sense at the time and was accurate for the time. If they'd built an arena in Newark in the 70s there's a good chance it would have been a complete flop. Newark was hitting its lowest point. So were all cities in the country (as Triumph mentioned) due to the effects of the Interstate Highway System and the rise of Suburbs which essentially was a federally subsidized attack on cities. The freeze on municipal annexation in East Coast states, especially NJ also drastically affected cities in those states in particular. All in all, cities weren't the happening thing in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s and the planning of the Meadowlands took place dead center of the time period. Mass transit was shunned. Cars were the wave of the future. Rail lines were replaced by highways. It wouldn't have occurred to the planners of the Meadowlands that building it where there were no trains was a drawback. They only looked at road access. Who cared whether there were trains there? In a few years no one would be using trains.

[VITO]

Although I can't comment on this subject, but it's very interesting.

Thanks for all the information!!!