Before I launch into why Staten Island should embrace Grand Prix racing, I think it is important to take a step back and look at Formula 1 from a strategic point of view.
There are 20 Grands Prix these days and the geographical distribution is still skewed. To gain the maximum number of global TV viewers there should really be equal distribution between the four basic time zones: the Americas, Europe, the Middle East/Africa and Asia/Pacific.
At the moment there are two races in the Americas, eight in Europe, three in the Middle East (including Turkey), and seven in Asia/Pacific. In a perfect world there would be five races per time zone, which would mean three extra races for the Americas, three fewer races for Europe, two extra events for the Middle East and two fewer for Asia/Pacific. In this way each region would have access at sensible hours to 10 races, with the other 10 happening at less social hours. Creating enthusiasm for a sport needs more than one event in a region to get people to wake up in the night to watch other races. Looking at the Americas we have Brazil and Canada. We will soon have a race in Austin and I would be surprised if within five years we do not see a race in Mexico. A second race in the United States is thus desirable – and there is space for it on the ultimate F1 calendar.
Losing races in Europe is not easy, but the European GP is not healthy (and we don’t need two events in Spain) and Germany needs to watch out if it is not to follow the same route taken by France. Perhaps there is a logic in a European GP, either alternating between France, Belgium and Germany, or at a venue based on the same philosophy as the EuroAirport, which was funded by the French, Germans and Swiss.
The Middle East/Africa will almost certainly lose Turkey soon, but the addition of Moscow (thinking in time zones, not geographical blocks), Cape Town and Qatar would balance things nicely.
Losing two races in Asia will not be that hard as the Australians are beginning to bleat too much for F1′s taste, and the Chinese can go on spending forever, but why would they bother? Malaysia too is a little out of place now that it has been trumped by Singapore.
Anyway, it is clear from this that the place that needs the most work is the Americas and that is why it is no surprise to hear that there are discussions going for a second US event on Staten Island. I have to say that I agree with Bernie Ecclestone in that if Formula 1 is going to go back to the United States in a successful way, it needs to be somewhere other than in the middle of nowhere. Austin has an interesting reputation as a city. It has many of the things that have led to success at F1 venues in the past, and I hope that it will be good. But it is not the only answer for establishing F1 in America. That needs something with a bit more punch. Indianapolis was fine from the point of view of tradition and race fans, but in 2005 F1 failed to respect the very first rule of show business, forgetting that “the show must go on” no matter what happens. That mess was all about politics and no-one seemed to care about the fans. The real problem at Indianapolis was not, however, the 2005 debacle but rather the fact that the race could not be run at a profit, or at least not at a loss. The folks in Indiana made plenty of cash from the race, but the speedway did not.
The answer in Bernie’s mind has always been New York, but finding a venue has been a nightmare because of the US’s love of lawsuits and the lack of available land in the New York area. The key to success for F1 events these days is their ability to generate revenue for the locals as well as for the sport. This happens wherever Formula 1 goes – to a lesser or greater extent – but it is difficult to write such things in a way that keeps accountants happy. So when people in Melbourne say that the Grand Prix costs the city X per year, that is not strictly the truth. Yes, it costs X, but they got Y back and Y is very definitely greater than X.
In addition, the image of the city is broadcast all over the world, creating a good impression. That adds to the Y figure, but again one cannot be more specific than that. Just as an example, my Dad is not a Formula 1 fan. He went on holiday recently to Spain and I mentioned in passing that he should go and see the Santiago Calatrava buildings in Valencia, because they are spectacular. I only know about them because I went to Valencia to cover the F1 race. My dad went to Valencia, spent whatever he spent and he will tell anyone who cares to listen that he thinks the city is one of the most unexpected surprises.
So there is knock-on effect in all these things…
If Staten Island wants a role model to look to I can think of two or three straight away. The obvious example is Long Beach, which was a rough old place in the 1970s, filled with bars, hookers, dosshouses and sailors. The city wanted to tart the place up a little (if you see what I mean) and so the Long Beach GP was created and by the 1990s this had transformed Long Beach into a very glitzy place. Albert Park in Melbourne was a dump in 1985. I know because I went there. Today it is thriving urban park, full of life and sport and the whole Albert Park/St Kilda neighbourhood has improved dramatically. There are some protesters who think they are saving Albert Park, but the truth is that Albert Park was saved years ago when F1 moved in.
Finally, for an example of F1′s ability to sprinkle magic dust on a place, one needs only to look at Singapore, which for years was seen as dull, austere and authoritarian. Since F1 went there the place has acquired a completely new global reputation…
Staten Island is the least exciting of the New York boroughs, but there is no real reason why it should be. It has great natural advantages, notably that it is surrounded by water. Much of the shoreline offers spectacular views of New York City. But, there are no subway links, the traffic is bad and the trains are old. It is not glitzy nor glamorous. And yet there are miles of waterfront waiting to be rediscovered. New York City has no money for that sort of thing, and is cutting back in lots of areas, but the city is still growing. OK, perhaps it is optimistic to think that the Subway tunnel that was started in Brooklyn in 1923 will ever reach Staten Island. It was stopped after a few hundred yards had been dug and ever since there has always something more important to spend the money on. Still, there is still talk of that project being finished one day to improve the quality of life for those who live on the island, reduce traffic, and increase the flow of visitors and investment cash. Visitors would boost the economy. House prices would rise accordingly and so on… If one looks at the development that has gone on in the London docklands in recent decades one will understand what could happen on Staten Island.
The naysayers argue that the economy is bad, but this does not mean that private developers cannot be encouraged to invest in projects which will help kick-start the economy. The planners in New York clearly understand the potential in Staten Island. A survey was conducted in 2008 by the New York City Economic Development Corporation and the New York City Department of City Planning, called “The West Shore Staten Island Land Use and Transportation Study”. This looked at the almost deserted western part of the Island, an area which is about half the size of Manhattan and discussed what could be achieved. Much of the land is vacant, notably the old GATX site, to the south of Goethal’s Bridge, where the International Speedway Corporation wanted to build a speedway on 676-acre site. That was a great idea because there is nothing there but an industrial wasteland. The opposition came from people complaining about congestion and ISC did not seem to understand that modern sports facility in urban areas do not have to rely on cars and can be fed by public transportation. The land in question is remote, has no housing but some wetlands that need protecting. Most of it is old oil storage facility. The land is still for sale because ISC’s buyers failed to come up with cash. The study reached no conclusions about the ISC land but highlighted that the whole western wide of the island should be redeveloped.
Elsewhere one can see discussions about a proposed West Shore Light Rail, being championed by the Staten Island Economic Development Corporation, which would come up from the south of the island, pass the ISC land and then go north over the Bayonne Bridge and connect to the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail, which is part of the New York transportation system. This would open up Staten Island to the eight million people who live in New York City, and the additional 10 million who live in the region. It would help Staten Island commuters enormously, provide potential for residential development of the western side of the island and bring people to events on Staten Island. It would also link up with a planned North Shore Light Rail which would run along the northern part of the island from the Staten Island Ferry, through an area where there are plans for a series of parks and docks, cafes, restaurants, markets and all the sort of stuff that attracts tourists. When you consider that the Staten Island Ferry carries 21 million people each year, many of them tourists, checking out the Statue of Liberty, but few ever bother to explore Staten Island, you can see the potential.
The defunct ISC plan is interesting in that one can see that a railway track runs right through the middle of the ISC land which could be used to transport people directly to a motorsport park development, which could offer not only racing but karting, driver training, corporate events and other such facilities.
A plan of the original ISC project from 2004
It is worth noting that the original ISC proposal also included a high-end shopping complex, to be developed by The Related Companies, owned by Stephen Ross, the owner of the Miami Dolphins, best known for its $1.7 billion Time Warner Center in Manhattan, so clearly there are investors who see a big future in Staten Island. But what attractions are there beyond that? Much work is already going on, particularly at the Fresh Kills Landfill, a few miles south of the ISC land. This is being transformed into a vast new park, which will bigger than Central Park when it is completed.
All things considered, there is a very good case for a motorsport facility on Staten Island – and a good chance that private investment could fund the idea.
You want to get everyone interested in F1 in the USA. Go back to the Glen. It would be the same as returning to Spa in 1983.
I understand the economics and ammentities won’t work.
But if the focus is on the sport – then that is correct thing to do.
Steve Selasky,
The emphasis is not on sport.
This is the third time a New York GP has been suggested in the last year and the problems you highlighted the first time have not changed. For example the occupancy rates for hotels.
I find it horrifying that anyone thinks Singapore has trumped Malaysia. Singapore is simply the Valencia dockyard industrial estate track with a glittery background. Singapore has the worst marshals in the world and I will never understand how they got a safety certificate in the first place or how it was renewed after the first appalling performance. No doubt F1 tradition will be followed and action will be taken as soon as someone dies because of ‘unforeseen’ cirumstances.
Malaysia at least allows the possibility of overtaking and racing. The Singapore track has no place on the F1 calendar.
I have no doubt that you meant trumped in the financial sense rather than anything to do with racing.
I think if you spread the races evenly throughout the world the global audience will drop. People who are used to having the majority of GPs at a sociable hour will just ignore those additional races at unsociable hours then they will ignore all those at unsocial hours then maybe even ignore those that are sociable hours.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Dan Sheehan, Austin Formula 1 and Pablo Bueno, Joe Saward. Joe Saward said: Why F1 on Staten Island is such a good idea…: http://wp.me/ppB1o-1ol [...]
Are we not approaching the thirtieth anniversary of the rumoured New York Grand Prix? Uncle Bernie was reported to be planning such an event in the Grand Prix International magazine in about 1981.
It’s hardly better anywhere else, but this came to mind:
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/von%20havenstein/Economist%20Cover.jpg
Still, sounds like they’ve got something to finish doing, no reason to spoil it for a hapeth of tarmac.
Nice coverage. I’ve got some sense of deja vu about this development, probably because it was mentioned a whole half a time in an end of sentence mumble somehere else before.
– j
I think it would be a good idea if A) the race in Austin wasn’t approved and millions weren’t being spent on it. This however would be typical for Bernie. Have someone spend millions and millions, then can the event leaving them holding the bag. B) There is so little interest in F1 in the US it doesn’t even register on the scale here. One reason for this is just plain geographic. Most races come on TV at heathen hours… Sunday at 7am. Granted, the hard core F1 fans get up and see it, but the vast majority are still sleeping. Additionally, no one wants to watch a tape delay, especially if they can watch Indy Car or NASCAR live, so it’s a catch 22.
With the recent arrests of the local ‘entrepreneurs’ AKA mobsters the chances are better compared with the initiative ISPC took.
A glorious idea but not in my lifetime.
The same NIMBY’s that killed the ISC NASCAR project will no doubt exert the same negative effect on any F1 venue proposed.
If it took nearly 2 billion dollars to build a new Yankee Stadium anyone care to guess what this kind of effort would cost in Staten Island? And more importantly who would pay for it all??
GeorgeK,
Well done. You have encapsulated all the arguments I expected against the idea, without addressing any of the reasons why they are not as valid as they were. Why can people over there not be positive and see the benefits? I guess some people just prefer living in a squalid post-industrial mess… Hey-ho. I don’t get it.
I wasn’t aware that New Yew City needed to raise its profile? Aren’t most people at least vaguely aware of it, unlike say, Valencia?
I live near NYC. I’d love there to be a race there. I’m not holding my breath – unlike the residents of Staten Island!
Gareth,
Don’t you read these stories. It is not about profile. Nor about tourism. It is about urban renewal.
Here’s the real question: Who would go? We’ve seen what would happen, having seen the race at Indy decline year after year. Fact of the matter is, there is about as much interest in F1 in the U.S. as there is NASCAR in Europe, maybe less. If anyone here wants to toss their life savings into it, be my guest. Like P.T. Barnum said “There’s a sucker born every minute”.
Chris Rehm,
Race fans would go. It is not rocket science. If a circus comes to come, people go to see it, so they can say they were there. And some because they love it.
“when people in Melbourne say that the Grand Prix costs the city X per year, that is not strictly the truth. Yes, it costs X, but they got Y back and Y is very definitely greater than X.”
Exactly, the Australian F1 GP may make a loss on ticket sales but taxes and visitor spend netted Melbourne $160 million.
Even if Staten Island only held the GP for 5 years, the impetus for the regeneration of the area would last a generation. … The as it did for the run-down Albert Park.
Joe,
The benefits are obvious to all and your well written piece takes pains to point out most of those good reasons.
The “people over there” do not live in a socialist Nirvana state where the government will pick up the tab for whatever next “Big Idea” that happens to materialize. Regardless of the post industrial mess that it may clean up and recover.
Then again the crooked politicians, gangsters, and Uncle Bernie just may discover a common interest in how to fleece the public into paying for all this.
Historically the Brooklyn Bridge was built because the politicians on both sides of the river understood the massive amounts of money to be made from the kickbacks.
Maybe an F1 facility would kindle the same realization to the parties previously mentioned.
My apology for introducing a dose of reality to what otherwise is a good idea.
Actually, if it costs the city X, they pay X and through smoke and mirrors those promoting attempt to show that they got X back, with a profit. Lets take hypothetical figures. Lets make pretend that in order to stage a GP, it runs the city $80M. Well, the promoters will show that revenue brought into the city is $250M. True, however this is overall revenue to the race…. a.k.a. hotels, restaurants, nightclubs… ex. The city still put out $80M, but their actual return is $35M, so although the race drew in $250M overall, the city’s bank account is a -$45M loss and that can only be replaced by additional tax revenue to the citizens.
Chris Rehm,
how long did we have F1 only on tape delay, or just edited highlights, over here? Murray Walker plausibly says that’s the origin of his famous commentary mistakes, having to overdub the commentary in one take, and getting caught out by the VT already being cut to the broadcast slot.
Well, it didn’t put me off at least. Last season in particlar, I found myself and equally nutcase (moreso, it’s possible) fans yelling over races we timeshifted because of work or family coming first.
Not even to think of the legions of fans who get no or plain awful coverage, and wait on illegal copies to appear for download.
Surely first order of the day is to give the existing US fans what they want. As much of it as possible, get word out. One race is obvious for commercial hopes, two is being serious. If you can piggy back a good second race on an existing plan . . Might be offering boiled sweets to the injured, but those crowds at Indy, dwarfed by the sheer scale of that place, were pretty big.
There’s one thing however, which absolutely does not go down well with US public at large, and that’s sleazy characters. Sure, there’s scandal aplenty in their media, but the style is to be humble (Ok, modest, as humble takes it a bit far) at least in public, and not flaunt it like, err, certain characters did, and some appear to be doing in F1.
Dammit, gotta put on Talladega again, just for the send up of the French F1 driver!*
cheers,
– j
*in case anyone hasn’t seen it, it’s awesome at so many levels, one being how wall to wall product placement is actually made funny.
If you think of F1 like the olympics / world cup or other nodal regeneration catlysts this could be one of a few “gigs” going free in the next 20 years that New York as a city can engage with to kick start a new city area – during a period where the private sector will need to lead both investment and development of the site and its infrastructure.
In terms of the locals, the money and the chance are not coming around again, so grab it whilst you can – or be happy with the old oil works.
The investors in the plan need to turn a profit, year on year.
To develop this project around a once a year event and some corporate hospitality/training, cobined with with a retail property development seems outdated – so 2005!
Perhaps they should look to argument there plans – focusing on routes to central government funding and wider skilled job creation. Look south of the site one finds The National Traffic Safety Institute –
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=40.611248,-74.183893&num=1&t=h&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=23.875,57.630033&ie=UTF8&ll=40.612666,-74.184687&spn=0.008861,0.018003&z=16
Around this you could develop a science and research park into the wider auto sector and create a USA centre for research into clean technology………
But then again, it will probably be just like Donnington.
I wrote a long bit explaining all the reasons why this won’t work. I’ve written the same thing before. The situation hasn’t changed. It won’t happen. Fuggeddaboudit.
I will mention two things, however:
1) The Yankees stadium is completely different and should not be used as a yardstick. The Yankees are a NY icon and were going to get whatever they wanted. And if you look at the actual “urban renewal” that was supposed to be a byproduct, it’s actually been much less of a boon for the community than advertised.
2) We already have a GMT -5 race on the calendar. It’s held in Montreal, is very popular, sells out, and brings a lot of tourism to a city that actually appreciates it. I hear they speak some English in Canada. They also drive Chevys and drink Coca-cola.
“Urban renewal” has a tainted history here in NYC. I realize that you mean well, Joe, and many of your arguments are sound — in theory. But with all due respect, it shows a bit of ignorance and naivety about the City’s history and its current situation.
You can start by reading the excellent “The Power Broker” about Robert Moses and his version of urban renewal. Then you might start to understand why people here are slow to cheer for having their neighborhoods plowed under in the name of Progress.
The City is, in fact, expanding and gentrifying. Rather quickly I might add. But the growth is in other directions and has different needs. We badly need the delayed 2nd Ave subway. The now-canceled additional Hudson River tunnel would have helped, too. We’ve actually been cutting bus service around the city, making commutes longer for the people who actually live and work here.
And if we’re talking about money, the bankers do well enough selling bad mortgages and flying down to DC for bailouts. Donald Trump already screwed most of them on redevelopment deals. They’re unlikely to go back for more abuse.
Here’s a constructive thought: the new money and ambition is out west these days. Think places where they do software and telecoms and aerospace. You’ve got Austin, which I personally think is a genius idea if they pull it off. But don’t ignore Denver, Portland, San Francisco and San Jose. The USF1 guys messed this relationship up, but it’s worth fixing. Denver, for one, has hosted downtown races in the past and it was a good show.
Oh, and Watkins Glen would be brilliant. Beautiful, and more sophisticated than it’s given credit. Corning is a lovely town.
The real problem at Indianapolis was not, however, the 2005 debacle but rather the fact that the race could not be run at a profit, or at least not at a loss. The folks in Indiana made plenty of cash from the race, but the speedway did not.
>> Joe I am bit puzzled on this one. Based on my experience of Modern F1 (Bernie operated), the entire process of hosting a race event goes something like this.
a) Local race promoter gets some sort of promise from Bernie/FIA that if s/he is able to pay race fees to CVC/Bernie Bernie can grant event on the calendar
b) If a) happens , the race promoter goes about building race facility as designed by FIA approved designer. This stage is possible only if there is private party with deep pockets to meet Bernie’s demands. Mostly these is public-private setup where private entity gets local governments to back the project in promise that event will elevate profile of the city/venue, increase jobs, generate revenue from tourism.
c) Come race event Bernie controls everything, track side advertising, cost of race tickets and pretty much everything that can be seen on the TV
and the entire a)-b)-c) scenario continues as long as the local race promoter is able to meet Bernie’s demands.
If my understanding of the process is correct, how did “folks in Indiana” made cash but speedway didn’t
My understanding of dealing with Bernie/CVC is like going to a casino where the house always wins.
In the US Govts (local/federal) never get involved in these kind of ventures especially in field of racing. Its always a private enterprise.
Unlike in the emerging economies where the Govts/ Bureaucrats are (in)directly part of the local race promoting entity. And while F1 races are well attended (by tourists) and Bernie/CVC are making profits, the venue is always hemorrhaging and goes to Govt for bailouts.
So what was the basis of Indiana making money and speedway not, I think speedway(race venue) never makes money in hosting F1 event (either in the US or elsewhere).
As far as the argument about the intangible benefits – raising profile of the city, promotion of tourism I am ambivalent, but the examples you have shared are compelling so I will not challenge them.
Since you have been associated with F1 at closer quarters day in day out, appreciate if you can enlighten understanding of common fan (one without exclusive access to teams/drivers/pitlanes/garages) like me, who has attended few F1 races in the Americas and in Asia.
Actually, Joe, maybe you should delete my post. Nobody cares, and it’s not very helpful to the conversation.
But you should read “The Power Broker.” It’s very good.
NA$CAR couldn’t get a race track built on Staten Island so how can Bernie? Plus New Yorkers have very little interest in auto racing and F1 ranks at the bottom here in the USA. As far as “urban renewal” with sports facilities, Mayor Lindsay gave that argument 40 years ago with spending $24 million to rebuild Yankee Stadium and the Bronx. The stadium cost four times that and no urban renewal occurred in a blighted community. You never hear any talk about extending the subway lines to Staten Island (or JFK airport) and I doubt you will. Staten Island is the ugy stepchild in New York City politics
Never gonna happen.
The City of Indianapolis appealed to the Indianapolis Motor Speedway to continue with the Grand Prix there. The Speedway said “Sure! So long as you foot the bill from now on”. The city had seen how much revenue was being taken in through the Grand Prix weekend (@ $200M). However, when they woke up and smelled the coffee after seeing how much return THEY could expect from their investment, they dropped the idea like a hot potato. (see my previous post here which explains how this happens) The sad fact is that with the exorbitant fees that are being charged to stage a Grand Prix today, the only ones who can afford such losses are actually countries in search of the prestige of actually staging a GP. So, today we have places like Bahrain, Malaysia, Singapore, Korea, and Abu Dhabi, all being bolstered by their governments. While they very well may be delightful places to visit, companies such as Mercedes-Benz and Renault sell more cars in France, than all the aforementioned combined. Yet, France no longer holds a Grand Prix. Great Britain is under constant threat. Toyota and BMW have pulled out. Part of their reason they pulled out is a lack of return on the markets that they are racing in. Fact of the matter is, operating a Grand Prix today is a major loss for anyone who invests into it. This isn’t rocket science. You invest $80M and get a return of $35M, loosing $45M in the process. Bernie’s the one who made the money. At the moment, staging a Grand Prix is not an equitable situation for investors. Additionally, it’s making less and less sense for those involved, as we’ve seen with Toyota and BMW. Either things have to change, or the monster created might eat the scientist who created it.
I think Terry’s explanation is the best.
I’ve just been reading (well, re – reading) some early history of Manhattan. (last night, total coincidence) Then i thought to look up some of the building districts which are now prime. I looked at the histories of many, but the last one in my mind is Gramercy Park. Wow, that’s changed.
I don’t think much has changed, however, from the New York idea of feudalism. Which was imported, of course, by men running from democracy, or revolutionary tyranny of a different kind, whatever whatever is
I hope I don’t bludgeon history here to less than a quarter inch of its life, but America has a far stronger idea of local district planning than I, as a born european, think in terms of being possible. (Not that i am not a right parochial prick, but our much smaller places had to get consolidated faster)
As a Brit, i also grew up with the new – fangled idea of County Courts, which took all the property law from the high court, down to local level, and conformed them according to imperatives governed by the central needs of what is a tiny, land – poor state. This simply doesn’t happen in the US. For all the grass is greener (especially if you are a bankrupt in Florida) property law is infinitely more robust, not just in statute, but in process and sequence of appeal, in the USA.
That gives many people avenues to deal with complaints, or less altruistic plans, quite a lot of play.
For Terry, my Pop ran de facto the biggest thrift here after the war. Bet you could push wierd 16th century law here, and mix up the similar, but we were told to lie down a long time ago!
thanks to all!,
– john
I should make that “individualistic district planning”, because US history is peppered with Real Men, who built districts and communities off their own bat.
Over here, you can look at how George Peabody, an American, left such a positive impact on the slums, particularly of east london. Was the done thing. Still nothing comparable, only 140 years since. See his statue next to Reuters’.
– j
The idea of F1 in Staten Island is laughable, on so many levels.
For starters, what is the source of the money? New York state is hemorrhaging red ink. The state and New York City can barely provide basic services for its citizens and is laying off teachers and closing schools due to budget deficits.
Does Bernie Ecclestone think New York is Singapore, Bahrain or Malaysia, nations with vast coffers of surplus cash to spend in a money-losing venture to attract tourists?
News flash: New York doesn’t need a Formula One race to attract visitors from around the globe. It already is one of the world’s largest tourism magnets.
Have you ever been to Staten Island? It’s most defining feature is a massive landfill. It’s the pimple of New York City, a place that is roundly jeered by everyone in the other four boroughs.
Staten Island has no of the cosmopolitan appeal of Manhattan or even the gritty, urban charm and history of The Bronx, Brooklyn or Queens. It’s a dump, plain and simple.
It’s also a major pain in the arse to travel from Manhattan to Staten Island, which is a major factor when considering that most of the moneyed gentry that Bernie wishes to attract lives in Manhattan. One must either take the Staten Island Ferry, which is simply not a palatable option for the elite, or cross into New Jersey or one of the other boroughs by bridge and then enter Staten Island by another bridge.
Maybe Staten Island will become the world’s busiest airfield for a day like Silverstone on British Grand Prix Race Day, but I highly doubt it. Silverstone may have been a figurative dump before its recent revise, but at least it wasn’t built adjacent to a literal dump.
The greater New York media will yawn about F1 after one year. Guaranteed. American media, especially in New York in New York, doesn’t like to be told who it can and can’t interview and when it can and can’t interview them. That was a major problem at Indianapolis, and the Indy media is docile on Valium compared to pit bulls in New York.
The timing of the race also will guarantee that it will not be a headline event in New York. A spring race will clash with the NBA Playoffs — the Knicks are a rapidly improving franchise — the Stanley Cup Playoffs with the Rangers a likely participant and the start of the Yankees and Mets in baseball. Early summer is dominated by the Yankees and Mets. Late summer headlines are controlled by the pennant races in baseball, which usually involve the Yankees, and training camp and preseason for the Giants and Jets in the NFL, by far the most popular sport in the U.S.
F1 will be an afterthought. It will not be a unique crown jewel in a “niche sport” that commands center stage like the U.S. Open tennis tournament at Flushing Meadow because the Open has decades of history and tradition in New York. It also has American competitors and a lineage of recent American success.
Formula One has none of that.
A Formula One race in Staten Island — or anywhere in the New York metropolitan area — is wishing thinking by the FOM and worldwide media. Ask 98 percent of New York City residents if they want an F1 race, and the response will be “What da hell is Eff One?”
I wish some of the naysayers here in Australia could read the paragraph about your father & Valencia.
a)Those cost/benefit claims always fallaciously compare revenues (thats’s revenues, not profits) with costs.
b)ISC has to consider something no F1 venues must; profit – that’s why they do what they do.
c)If you have never lived in NYC, you must understand that people there do not like cars. Here in Baltimore we are thrilled to have a street race downtown. New York couldn’t care less; fugetaboutit!
d)Austin does care, or at least they might care when the show gets going. I’ve never been there but have never heard a bad thing about the city. I have been to San Antonio which is only an hour or so south and I recommend you put that city on your list. It’s a unique Tex/Mex mixture that is worth the detour.
With the whole ‘Sputnik moment’ and all, wouldn’t it make sense for Americans to get off the couch and start innovatin’, risk takin’, and getting’ things done again. Come on! Just go for it and make somethin’ out of nothin’ … if you still can. If you don’t others will.
Unfortunately, F1 does not produce the numbers to compete in the New York market. In America, F1 is doomed to third- and fourth-tier cities like Austin (if at all).
An F1 race has the same approximate economic impact to the NYC area as…..three Knicks games. Big whoop. The Knicks have 41 home games per year. F1′s costs are astronomical, a track uses up a huge amount of land, a race utilizes its facility only 4 days a year, and there is zero potential for profit. None. Exactly zero of the F1 races are profitable concerns.
In addition to The Knicks’ 41 home games per year, The Nets also have 41. The Giants and the Jets have 10 home games, each of which has approximately 3.5x the economic impact of an NBA game. The Yankees and the Mets have 81 home games per year apiece, each of which has about 2x the economic impact of an NBA Game.
In order to compete with these existing pro sports franchises in the NY area, an F1 race would have to bring in, conservatively, about 750,000 fans. Last time I checked, 50,000 fans at an F1 race was considered wildly successful.
In addition, F1 has no “wow” factor to Americans. Seb Vettel or Michael Schumacher could walk down Park Avenue in full team regalia at 13:00 on a Monday afternoon and neither could attract enough attention to hail a taxi. A similar appearance by A-Rod or Derek Jeter or Amar’e Stoudamire would start a citywide riot requiring deployment of the National Guard. As for TV, Joe’s waxing poetic about skylines is all very nice, but the fact remains that bowling and poker have TV audiences several thousand per cent higher than F1′s TV audience in the US. In terms of international TV, one NBA Finals game has approximately the same worldwide TV audience as an F1 race. Last year there were 7 (Lakers vs Celtics went the full distance, 4-3).
JBUSA,
All so definitive and negative. How can you say any of that until there is an F1 race in the New York area.
As I said before, what happened to America being the land of opportunity?
Joe, I understand the emphasis is not on the sport. It is pure economics. Make money.
Take care and thanks for your great insight. Hope to subscribe to the magazine.
Steve Selasky
Subscriptions are available now
Joe, in line with the discussion above about the profitability of new venues, etc., can you enlighten me as to who in F1 (apart from Bernie) actually makes any money?
I live in Adelaide and the Oz GP, when it ran here during the 80s and 90s, was fantastic but it cost the South Australian state government an arm and a leg. And although I’d love to see the race come back here, I can’t in all honesty say I’d like my tax dollars to be spent on an F1 race rather than the local hospitals or schools.
Without doubt, the race lifted Adelaide’s profile at the time but not in any lasting manner and not with a lift in tourism during the other 51 weeks of the year.
I guess the crunch question is this: is Bernie the only one who walks away with a profit because of exorbitant fees? Or is there a potential business model for F1 where everyone could make a buck?
Who makes money? Every hotel, bar, restaurant, hair salon, taxis, car hire places etc etc etc. And the government , which got all the tax dollars. Not to mention wineries…
I was one of those dedicated North Americans who got up in the middle of the night to watch every GP. I never missed one since the early 70′s. But that was long before VHS recorders, cable boxes and now the many choices of PVR devices and TV hard drives.
Back in the day, I used to avoid news, radio and conversation, afraid I might hear who won before I watched the “taped” race. Fortunately in North America you could scan every media for hours on a GP weekend and never hear a word – unless it was taking place a few miles away. Then, of course, for a week and a half, F1 is the greatest (after which it’s back to digging deeply for any news whatsoever about the sport).
I’m not knocking America’s poor taste in motorsport, I’m just wondering why we should worry about time zones anymore. F1 should concentrate on events where they can fill seats and attract fans with exciting curcuits where drivers can race and pass.
Then we could all enjoy watching F1 at our convenience. And I’m sure we’d even be happy to pay for the privilege.
Who makes money?
According to Raymond Bachand (Member of the National Assembly of Quebec), Montreal (a comparable race) makes $75 million for the Montreal economy of which nearly $17 million are in sales taxes.
Trey Salinas and Don Hoyte of the Texas Trust Fund, estimate Austin will benefit from a larger windfall than that of South by Southwest and an entire season of The University of Texas football home games combined.
Whether the GP will do that well is yet to be seen, but it puts Austin on a global footing, something domestic US sport can never do.
Barry Hope of Gulf Sports UAE sums it up nicely about why in excess of 16 new countries want in on F1, when he said:
“The return on investment is what decides [whether to build a new track or not] and it’s very good, It puts the country on the map and with the rate of return on investment you have your money back in one or two days. And as far as the country is concerned it’s a major branding and marketing effort.”
I have to agree with others about Indy…the reason it failed was the venue. The infield course was a joke! What it turned into was a parade of cars with very little overtaking, and that does not make for good repeat sales.
Add to that the fact that the huge grandstands at Indy made anything less than 300,000 people there appear to be nearly empty stands.
I believe F1 CAN become successful in America, and am glad that we are getting the opportunity in Austin to do it. My enthusiasm is tempered with the fact that it won’t be easy, but it can be done. I don’t get the impression that anybody involved in hosting it is looking through rose-colored glasses either.
Bernie is both the savior and the devil, all wrapped into one package. There can be no denying that he’s brought the sport to a new level. On the other hand, his greed is also casting aside venues where F1 traditions were forged. You simply CAN’T take ALL the money from a promoter and expect the event to continue. If it can’t turn a profit, why would anyone subject themselves to that kind of a business plan?
Tavo is working the phones to pull in other racing series to help defray the cost of F1, and I think that is a very smart move. Pulling in MotoGP, Grand-Am, ALMS, SCCA Pro…all of these will help add to his bottom line so he can afford a slight loss on the F1 events. I also don’t think Bernie is going to completely bend over someone he’s been close friends with for nearly 40 years. It was Tavo’s family ties to Bernie that got Austin on the radar to begin with.
I have no idea about the validity of another race in New York City. I personally can’t see it happening. I CAN see it returning to Watkins Glen if they made the improvements needed to keep the drivers and fans safe.
Australia is NOT a good yardstick to measure by either. They need to spend insane amounts every year to build, then tear down a track (and grandstands) every year. That doesn’t happen when you have permanent facilities in place.
Come down to Austin in 2012…and keep coming back. You’ll love it here, food, weather, scenery and more live music than you can see in a lifetime.
There are quite a few F1 fans is in the USA and I do get tired of being put down. I think Indy proved our interest in it, but the US also has a rich history of excellent road courses. The Glen, Road America, Road Atlanta, Mid-Ohio, Sears Point, Laguna Seca and the list goes on.
The racing at any of these tracks would be great and the crowd will come (even if the ticket prices sting a bit). But the money pit that F1 has become (just the entry price to buy a date from Bernie) keeps these excellent tracks off the map.
You have to differentiate between the hard core F1 fan and the roaming F1 glitzy VIPS that might be shocked by the cozy atmosphere at Elkhart Lake.
The US has a rich tradition of road racing and Staten Island won’t cut it (nothing against them), it would just be putting out money with no real return.
I’d rather drive to Montreal than Staten Island. Even if Staten Island is only 45 minutes away.
It should be about the action on the track, not those walking around the false grid 30 minutes before the race.
racerx
Not nowadays… Formula 1 is about putting on a show as part of a bigger economic programme. It will never justify itself from fan numbers alone. One has to look at the bigger picture and see F1 as a “social engineering phenomenon”. Just the same as the Olympic Games!
Who makes money? Joe, you are absolutely correct, as I was in one of my earlier posts on this thread. The restaurants, hotels, bars, cabbies, liquor distributors.. ex. Absolutely! So the city shells out, say $80M and sees a return of $35M. -$5M. Ok, so lets use Indianapolis’ figures of $200M coming into the city for the weekend. and lets use a tax return on that of 8% on all good and services. That’s $16M, albeit deferred until the following tax return (we’ll forgo the interest lost for now). So now we have a-$29M loss. Lets not forget the total cost for the land and the cost for building a track to F1 specs. That’s easily a minimum of $350M. So, just for the first race alone the overall cost is $451M, out of pocket and they can expect a return of $51M and they still have $400M to go before breaking even. And look who they’re working with. An organization who has a reputation for dropping them, or anyone else, at a whim, leaving them holding the bag, as we’ve seen in the past. I mean lets call aces, aces. Here we are discussing a race in Satten Island, while millions and millions are currently being spent as bulldozers are working in Austin. Please don’t get me wrong. I love F1! What I don’t care for is how it currently is being run. Charging such high rates that the classic races, the ones that made Grand Prix, Grand Prix are being cast aside, or threatened every year. I ask; in ten years can it still be called a Grand Prix if all the races held are in government sponsored third world countries. Nothing against expansion, but if it is going to continue to be a Grand Prix, events need to continue to be run in France, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Monaco, and Belgium. The series needs to have a classic core, otherwise it looses it’s prestige. As it stands, we’re seeing a series which is rapidly approaching a level of being a series where the philosophy is akin to “The Emperor’s New Clothes” and run by a group of economic thugs who will just as soon cut your throat as shake your hand.
Chris Rehm.
You need to look at some proper economic studies to get more realistic figures, rather than plucking numbers out of the sky. Your figures are not correct. I did not say that the government made a profit, but the country did. Obviously it depends on the race track and the costs of erecting temporary structures. Still, who cares about the facts, eh? Better to always look on the dark side and do nothing. For a series that makes no economic sense, there are an awful lot of cities queueing up to be taken advantage of.
Would that because they are all stupid and you are clever… or that perhaps you are not right?
I’ve lived in New York for 30 years and this is the first time I’ve ever heard of even the possibility of a subway connection between Staten Island and any other borough.
Spectator access to this imaginary motorsports mecca would all be by car (except for Bernie E and all the other luminaries whisked in by Delorean-built teletransporters. As Joe points out, Staten Island is surrounded by water…. and regular people’s cars don’t float.
Lastly, New York is resoundingly, emphatically, and determinedly indifferent to motor sports.
It’ll never happen.
Joe,
If we look at the bigger picure too much, more people will be outside the circuit partying and not paying attention to what’s happening on the circuit.
Is it the party or the race. Certainly atmosphere plays a part and adds richness as the event become more successful. Look at Long Beach, which has survived the econonimc climate, F1 and the Indy car split. It’s still happening without the tremendous losses of some F1 events.
Joe, holding a Grand Prix today makes sense for a third world country who’s attempting to put themselves in the forefront of attention in the world. Especially if they are attempting to draw attention to their advantages in say something like production of goods. The world is suddenly at their doorstep. Does it make sense for them to spend hundreds of millions in order to draw that attention to them? Absolutely. On the flip side, does it make sense for a metropolis like New York to do so? I’d say no, not in the slightest. At least not with the current structure of F1 management. There’s no logical reason to loose money. Silverstone, who don’t even have to build a track, are under constant threat. I’d say “Great!” to a race on Statten Island, providing it works for everyone. That’s good business. But as it stands, it works for the local hotels, restaurants, bars, service people and F1. It doesn’t work however for the city. If F1 can make it work for the city and the race in Austin is not compromised (there used to be a rule saying that there could be two races in one country if they are 2000 miles apart. I don’t know if that still exists) I’m all for it. However, I don’t see the F1 bureaucracy being able to guarantee such a return, nor do I feel they would enter into such an agreement. F1 is not so much interested in creating a partnership with the race locations, as they are in just being a vendor to them.
The continued folly of trying to stage F1 in an American metropolis proves that this is much more than cracking the world’s largest economy for Bernie. It’s personal.
The United States is the only market in which Bernie and FOM have been an abject failure. Dallas — fail. Phoenix — fail. Indianapolis — despite early success, fail.
Bernie simply doesn’t understand the American market or the American political machinery. F1 requires major-league funding from government, and the return is decidedly minor league when comparing it to other American events.
American governments simply won’t stomach the initial expense due to voter outrage, regardless of the long-term return. New Yorkers would be willing to pay for a new stadium for the Giants, Jets, Yankees, Mets, Rangers or Knicks, but this is F1 — it may as well be Martian bowling to most residents of Gotham.
Bernie refuses to adapt to the unique demands of the American marketplace, instead keeping every F1 race a homogenous, “add water, makes its own sauce” event that supposedly can work in any marketplace. American governments and circuit organizers are not going to pay an annual sanctioning fee north of $30 million. It’s a no-win situation for them, and F1 simply doesn’t mean enough to the American sports fan or local economy to lose money on the deal.
Sorry, but Staten Island is not Doha. It’s not Singapore. It’s not Budapest. What works there doesn’t work here.
Poor comparison to the Olympic Games, too. The Olympics are a quadrennial event involving thousands of athletes, including medal-winning Americans. The Olympics are a worldwide brand that resonates in America. F1 is not.
I would say a vast majority of New Yorkers would rather watch a key regular-season or postseason game with the Giants, Jets or Yankees than the Olympics, much like many Mancunians probably would prefer seeing United play Chelsea at Old Trafford than Spain play Italy in a World Cup quarterfinal.
F1 can’t compare to the Olympics, which already are lower on the Big Apple sports totem pole than most New York-area professional teams.
So how can Bernie “socially engineer” F1 into prominence in New York? F1 would become a “one-week” blip on the radar in New York, at best, much like the U.S. Open tennis tournament.
Difference is, the Open doesn’t require a nine-figure initial outlay from government and organizers.
Indianapolis did not fail because of the venue; it existed at all BECAUSE of the venue. The venue also did not try to illicit ANY dollars (other than stuff like police help, etc.); IMS has never accepted cash from the State and swears it never will.
F1 failed at Indianapolis because of F1 circa 2000-2007, not Indianapolis.
A warning to those in Austin and Staten Island or wherever. But F1 also isn’t the same as it was 2000-2007 so….
IBiI
Joe, soon as I get the some extra cash this month I will subscribe.
The negative feedback for this post is due to the a possible perception that F1 economics is out of whack. Just an opinion.
Take care… I enjoy the blog immensely.
The feedback here is not negative, but rather objective. The situation must be looked at from all sides. Would it be wonderful if there was a Grand Prix on Statten Island? Absolutely! However, one must look at it from all sides if it is to happen. If this should get to the point where the State of New York begins to look at it, the questions that I and others have pointed out, will be the same as New York will be asking. I go back to what I stated earlier, F1 wants to be a vendor to a location holding a Grand Prix, instead of being a business partner. If NASCAR or IndyCar became involved in a competition for the venue, they will act as a partner, with a substantial lower cost to the city, as well as a far greater less risk on various different levels.
As a Staten Islander and F1/motorsport fanatic, I can sadly and unequivocally say this will never happen. There is no general want in the city for any large sports complex (read into the West Side Stadium), let alone one devoted to motorsport.
I would give anything to have an F1 level track within a 5 hour drive, let alone in my backyard, but there is so much resistance for these types of projects. Like the general consensus in the comments section is, most New Yorkers think F1 IS Nascar. Nascar in NY has a rather negative stereotype, and F1 also suffers from it. NYers especially are completely apathetic to motorsport.
Other than funding, the major obstacle the NASCAR track on SI ran into was that most NYers (especially Staten Islanders) were opposed to a track/sporting complex on “over development” and traffic ALONE. Mr. Saward has a GROSSLY optimistic view on public transport on Staten Island. We always get shafted, and the MTA (NYs public transport organization) is lost in staten island without a large venue.
New Yorkers today are in a state of screaming for less municipal spending on public works and more spending on helping the everyday man. Granted, a track would create a multitude of jobs, but most hipster NYers snub cars in general, and would gloss over that fact.
One of the glaring issues is the size of that available land. I don’t think it would be large enough for a modern F1 circuit. The original NASCAR plan was for a short track oval, that didn’t take up TOO much space. I am strongly for the protection of SI wetlands, so there isn’t actually enough room for a racetrack that isn’t a short oval after you set aside “available” land for wetlands. You NEED parking, there is no doubt about it. Look at Yankee Stadium to see how much parking it has, and the MTA is all over it. If you look at the original NASCAR plan, you can see how much space (or lack thereof) is actually available for the track.
I hate to have such a cynical stance on the issue, since I am 110% for a NYC Staten Island F1 track….but all you have to do is look at the cold hard facts to see it will never happen… that or ask anyone in NYC. I wish I had your optimism Mr. Saward!
Breadwagon,
It is not optimism. It is just an open mind.
Biggus Jimmus,
at least a certain stratum, which still has some influence, in America, has long sussed that – having been born of the imperatives of the post – war era – balance of payments and socio – economic international divides are subordinate to exactly what you say: getting off one’s arse and doing something big. All that happened, was we got complacent, and the ROW played catch up.
Where i think you go wrong, is assuming “others will” as if these kind of technological efforts can just be copied and pasted.
In the aid of not repeating myself, I expanded on this in a different direction here:
http://storagemojo.com/2011/01/30/will-algorithms-leap-moores-wall/
(in the comments, same moniker, same reason i became the “other John”)
I know this is not up the usual F1 street circuit, but some things really do get hurried into a corner, and I do not like being stuck in corners.
You’d really enjoy properly reading up on the space programmes. For kicks, you could start with the lost Cosmanauts, because that kind of story only briefly surfaced at the fall of the USSR, got shut again, and leads you to the real story of how hard it all was. Too many books to reccommend. But do look, you’ll like. “Sputnik Moments” were aplenty, as were tears.
yours,
– john
racerx,
is not the problem with looking at the bigger picture, something that crystallizes when you listen only to elected officials?
– j
Chris Rehm,
You might like to take a look at this
http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=42875
JBUSA,
“In America, F1 is doomed to third- and fourth-tier cities like Austin ”
It has probably chilled now, but Austin was growing like wildfire for decades. It’s also got a not insignificant silicon chip industry. You can’t just put those things anywhere, or quickly up sticks and move (though Intel scrapped a half built fab in a downturn) because apart from needing vast skilled supply chains, they have to be situated in a seismically neutral spot. (think what vibrations do at a nanometer level of precision).
I’m probably just explaining why Austin might fit rather well with F1.
– j
Chris Rehm, you are correct. Objective is a better term to desribe the feedback.
I am with the majority of the opinions. I struggle with the 30m sanctioning fees with the sliding increases over the life of a contract. This creates those $500+ price tickets which leads to empty seats. (I believe a photo from Monza was posted depicting this) Additionally, F1 shares no financial risks in any of the ventures. I shudder to think what would happen if F1 tracks organized and forced sanctioning fees down?
Yeah, maybe a GP helps the local economy in some cases.
However, I don’t think a rising tide lifts all boats.
On a personal note I think all sports (baseball, football, hockey, basketball, college football) are overpriced in the USA (w/exception of Indy Racing/ALMS). However, I understand that they have cost structures that need to be supported.
If the GP comes to Staten Island and it works. If it works in Austin then great too.
It should help with the economy. I agree that Staten Island is a good place to hold the F1 this time. It generates not just income but also public interest. I don’t think it’s a bad idea.
[...] Everyone in the blogosphere is now talking about F1 and Staten Island and whether Bernie Ecclestone has gone to meet New York mayor Michael Bloomberg or not. It all seems to have come from Ron Walker in Melbourne who has now twice mentioned Staten Island as a possible F1 venue. No-one else as far as I can see. So the real question is whether Ron – a well known Ecclestone friend and ally – is dropping the idea to create interest in such an idea, on behalf of Ecclestone, or simply using the idea to stir up the folks in Melbourne with the suggestion that the Australian race might end up in America. I do not know the answer, but I did take a look at whether a race on Staten Island would be a good idea or not. If you missed the article in January, you can just click here. [...]
[...] Everyone in the blogosphere is now talking about F1 and Staten Island and whether Bernie Ecclestone has gone to meet New York mayor Michael Bloomberg or not. It all seems to have come from Ron Walker in Melbourne who has now twice mentioned Staten Island as a possible F1 venue. No-one else as far as I can see. So the real question is whether Ron – a well known Ecclestone friend and ally – is dropping the idea to create interest in such an idea, on behalf of Ecclestone, or simply using the idea to stir up the folks in Melbourne with the suggestion that the Australian race might end up in America. I do not know the answer, but I did take a look at whether a race on Staten Island would be a good idea or not. If you missed the article in January, you can just click here. [...]