U.S. Bank Stadium

Downtown - North Loop - Mill District - Elliot Park - Loring Park
mullen
Foshay Tower
Posts: 986
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 7:02 am

Re: U.S. Bank Stadium Construction Updates

Postby mullen » March 14th, 2016, 4:52 pm

kirby puckett place is an official name...not an alternative.

this is such a silly, petty,smarmy debate and speaks to mpls' awful governance.

you hate funding of stadiums therefore be petty. heckuva job. that any development exists in this town actually surprises me half the time. it's three blocks. people act if the entire length of the street to richfield will be changed.

but go ahead and approve that ugly wahlgreens with the parking lot.

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4602
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Re: U.S. Bank Stadium Construction Updates

Postby FISHMANPET » March 14th, 2016, 5:00 pm

It's an official alternative. You don't have to believe, me, but would you believe the staff report that says that street currently bears the name Chicago Ave, and that afterwards it would not?
http://minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/pub ... 175008.pdf
Page 2 says the street is currently Kirby Pucket Way and Chicago Ave, after this change it would just be Vikings Way. If you don't want to read, there's a picture on page 5.

Ironically it would be "better" if it was renamed from the river all the way to Richfield, then at least nobody would be able to make the continuity argument, which is really the strongest argument against this. But then you'd have to come up with a REALLY good reason to rename the street.

EOst
Capella Tower
Posts: 2290
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: North End, Saint Paul

Re: U.S. Bank Stadium Construction Updates

Postby EOst » March 14th, 2016, 5:07 pm

FISHMANPET wrote:Ironically it would be "better" if it was renamed from the river all the way to Richfield, then at least nobody would be able to make the continuity argument, which is really the strongest argument against this. But then you'd have to come up with a REALLY good reason to rename the street.
Viking-Lake has a ring to it

Wedgeguy
Capella Tower
Posts: 3785
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 6:59 am

Re: U.S. Bank Stadium Construction Updates

Postby Wedgeguy » March 14th, 2016, 7:22 pm

Easiest way to solve this is to take a page from the Vikings play book. They want their name on the street, The we can have naming rights of say 3/4 to a mil every five years to have their way. It would be only appropriate. Or we give them the change and the city get all the cash from the advertising that would have gone to the Viking back. Remember you are playing with business men here. You start taking dollars out of their pockets like that have been doing to us, You will see that the name will not be that big of a deal once that start to have to pay for the naming rights.

Wedgeguy
Capella Tower
Posts: 3785
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 6:59 am

Re: U.S. Bank Stadium Construction Updates

Postby Wedgeguy » March 14th, 2016, 9:40 pm

Planning commission today on an 8-0 vote said no to the Viking Way. Still needs to go before the full council, but I'm hoping that this is the end of this silly renaming games.

Daboink
Metrodome
Posts: 66
Joined: March 10th, 2015, 10:32 am

Re: U.S. Bank Stadium Construction Updates

Postby Daboink » March 14th, 2016, 10:39 pm

Wedgeguy wrote:Planning commission today on an 8-0 vote said no to the Viking Way. Still needs to go before the full council, but I'm hoping that this is the end of this silly renaming games.
Don't rush, Mr. Frey says he would be willing to barter back public rights to the Commons Park in exchange for a name change. To me that would be worth it 100%.

VikingFaninMaryland
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 128
Joined: July 24th, 2015, 7:27 pm

Re: U.S. Bank Stadium Construction Updates

Postby VikingFaninMaryland » March 15th, 2016, 2:56 am

Nathan wrote:
amiller92 wrote:
VikingFaninMaryland wrote: My point is that there is very little beside irrational venomous dislike driving the dislike of the Wilfs and it oozes from this forum and its unseemly.
I don't know why you feel the need to fight this fight here, but if you're going to carry on you need to at least accept that lots of people aren't happy about public stadium financing and that's not irrational or venomous.

Which I say as someone who supported public funding for the stadium.

And to add to that, to impose the view of a few posters of this forum to the entire board is silly. Plenty of people aren't participating in this conversation. I do think the Wilfs could have built a stadium on their own (or with considerably less subsidy), but I'm also not overly upset that some public money went into it (I think the state and it's residents will get quite a bit of use out of this new structure). Plenty of people here just aren't passionate enough to type out a response when the few overly zealous stadium haters get to posting.

Can everyone here just take the super super overly opinionated rhetoric out of their comments? If you don't like it state why, if you do, state why, there doesn't need to be name calling or attacks, it's a stadium, it's months from completion. end of conversation for like 30-50 years.
A comment from the StarTribune article “Minneapolis planners reject Vikings bid to rename Chicago Avenue” March 14, 2016: “Can't stand Vikings ownership is shysters from New Jersey”

AMILLER92 -

I’m not fighting a fight, I’m calling out some very unseemly characterizations on this post, and on SkyScraper. I can easily accept that lots of people aren’t happy with public financing but can also point out that the decision was made by those with the authority to act and its time to move on. In this regard, their complaint isn’t against the the Wilfs, but rather the state and local negotiators who agreed to what the Wilfs have a legal right to execute.

The side that was against public funding also tends to maintain the delusion that the Vikings would stay in Minnesota had a new stadium not been built. Had the State of Minnesota said “no, we will not finance a new stadium,” I would have disagreed but then would have said “okay” and moved on. The problem is that the State knew that such a decision would doom Minnesota’s ability to retain an NFL franchise.

Its just this simple, if Minnesota wanted an NFL franchise, they had to cough up the public dough. I don’t have to like it or even agree with it to recognize that thats the way it is. At some point, the rabid anti public funders refuse to recognize this - making their entire rant unreality based (that and also because we are years past that decision).

The Wilfs negotiated in good faith against a state that had the resources to represent its interests. There are no allegations of wrongdoing or undue influence. Like it or not, there is nothing in what the Wilfs did that separates them from standard practice among NFL owners - the NFL being the elite sports franchise in America today - when securing a new stadium and associated rights. Hence, the unending personal attacks against the Wilfs for securing what is a standard stadium agreement - where the Wilfs are putting very large sums of their own money into the project (more $$ than any other Minnesota sports franchise owner ever) - makes the charge of they’re being money grubbers inappropriate not least because its not true.

Even with the new stadium, the Vikings will yet again have the most expensive lease in the NFL. What’s remarkable about the Vikings is how severely they were disadvantaged by the Metronome and its onerous lease to the point where it made the franchise uncompetitive. (A good CityPages article from 2007 concerning how financially deprived the Vikings were because they played in the Metrodome - http://www.citypages.com/news/eye-of-th ... er-6688699 )

So, I don’t get the carping about naming right, branding rights, seat licenses (for fans who demonstrate a complete willingness to pay) and usage rights to a new park (the “Yard”) that they negotiated and secured in good faith with the State of Minnesota - that included their giving up potential property rights they could have secured for that purpose - for a park that exists in order to front the new stadium, that would not exist but for the stadium, for which the Vikings are contributing large sums of their own money to build, that Minneapolis Parks has declined to operate.

As this is a “Streets-MNForum” from UrbanMSP that has interests in urban architecture and fancies itself adept at calling out national and international styles, trends, etc, but which also wonders why MPLS is not keeping pace with other cities it benchmarks, consider this. The Wilfs are a recognized national developer with a stable reputation (not-with-standing an embarrassing law suit that reflects a personal relationship falling-out in a bitter way in a business relationship).

What do you think it means to the national level developer / investor / financier communities when owners they know have played by the rules, invested over $500 million of their own money, plan to spend over $250 million on a training complex, that when they execute a standard bundle of rights for a stadium they work hard to ensure will be world class, they turn to the local governing authority and ask for the standard courtesy of renaming the street fronting their new stadium and they are denied even though -
1) The same governing authority recently did the same for the Twins in their downtown stadium, in which there were no objections, as is a common practice;
2) the City Council offered to reassess their decision if the Vikings surrender the rights they bargained in good faith for in negotiations with the State of Minnesota;
3) Where a common sub theme in the media is a hostile anti-Wilf, anti East Coast, anti “shyster” meme that is fairly captured by the comment “Can’t stand Vikings ownership - is shysters from New Jersey.”
How are national and international developers and investors supposed to assess the local Twin Cities market, which considers itself “cosmopolitan”, even as it favors a local developer (Ryan) even after it fails to perform on parking ramp air rights at a time when the Shysters from New Jersey have a plan that meets the usage requirements of the development plan, meets the revenue parameters of the City of Minneapolis, have a design, have a contractor, and is willing and able to put immediate $$ down to start? You think this type of thing goes unnoticed?

In other words, at a time when the locals use derogatory and unseemly characterizations of the “shysters from New Jersey,” the local authority becomes emboldened to condition a simple naming courtesy on the undoing of a contractually bargained for right while playing favorites with local developers that comes at the actual cost of stalling out the DTE development plan (costing jobs), and folks in this forum wonder why large scale development in the Twin Cities is not keeping pace? (Oh, and the taxes!) This is not even handed or fair treatment. And the Wilfs are not treated in an even handed and fair way. I don’t have to be pro-Wilf to point out seriously unfair treatment and characterizations.

To many outsiders in the business world, “Minnesota Nice” has a negative connotation of inbred passive aggression. This at a time when the most popular movie about Minnesota is still Fargo and folks watch Making a Murderer and think of the upper Mid-West.

NATHAN

It may be only a few, but maybe more than you think, and it definitely gives this otherwise really cool resource an indelibly bad taste. In any event, there is no “super super overly opinionated rhetoric” that I couldn’t convert to an evidentiary fact capable of meeting rules of evidence. That’s why I find the rhetoric so distracting. If you like, I could turn this whole thing over to the Anti-Defamation League or some similar group and they could help you see that this goes way beyond mere opinion. But they would not be nearly as low key or polite about it.

With that, I’ve said all that I care to on this topic.

Wedgeguy
Capella Tower
Posts: 3785
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 6:59 am

Re: U.S. Bank Stadium Construction Updates

Postby Wedgeguy » March 15th, 2016, 7:09 am

Daboink wrote:
Wedgeguy wrote:Planning commission today on an 8-0 vote said no to the Viking Way. Still needs to go before the full council, but I'm hoping that this is the end of this silly renaming games.
Don't rush, Mr. Frey says he would be willing to barter back public rights to the Commons Park in exchange for a name change. To me that would be worth it 100%.
That is an interesting twist I did not see coming or even think about. But I'll surely let Mr. Frey barter for the Commons back. To me the public access to the best weekends should go to us the public, not the for profit Viking or the MSFA who really have no use other that to try and get some money out of shows and concerts to pad their bonuses. I wish Mr. Frey the best of luck with his barter. Will be interesting to see what the Viking will give up for that name change, if it really is such an issue.

Maybe if we get the park back in the public realm, we will see donation start up again to finish the park with amenities that will make the park a great PUBLIC space. For a truly public park, I'll give in to a name change.

Rich
Rice Park
Posts: 413
Joined: June 30th, 2012, 7:12 pm

Re: U.S. Bank Stadium Construction Updates

Postby Rich » March 15th, 2016, 7:29 am

Wedgeguy wrote:I wish Mr. Frey the best of luck with his barter. Will be interesting to see what the Viking will give up for that name change, if it really is such an issue.
Wasn’t the Wilf’s oversized park request made when it still seemed likely that 20 MLS games would be played at U.S. Bank Stadium? Have we heard yet what their new demands are now that MLS is out of the picture? Because I wouldn’t be surprised if they aren’t already planning on scaling their park dates request down to less than half of what it originally was. There’s no need for Mr. Frey to bargain.

mplsjaromir
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1112
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 8:03 am
Location: Sommerset Knolls

Re: U.S. Bank Stadium Construction Updates

Postby mplsjaromir » March 15th, 2016, 7:31 am

Please turn this over to the ADL. That would be the funniest thing I have ever seen. A guy who received 2/3 of billion dollars in public financing to build a custom building for his business is denied a vanity special public concession. The oppression! The evidence of it being anti-Semitic is a random anonymous on-line newspaper comment!

People do not think much of the Wilfs for a number of reasons. One is the fact that the Wilfs are where they are financially today because they received a large inheritance. I am not here to say if inheriting large sums is right or wrong, just that most people do not automatically respect those who do. There is nothing to indicate that the current generation of Wilfs are actually savvy business people themselves. By all indications they would be wealthier if they just put their money into index funds or REITs. Their biography resembles the Trump family, East Coast real estate scions who were born on third base but act like they hit a triple. Only simpletons believe these people success is because our society is somehow a meritocracy. Secondly the Wilfs bought the Vikings and threatened to move the team almost immediately after their purchase. They had the right and nothing illegal happened, some find that unbecoming. People can do things that may not be illegal, that still harm their reputation.

VFIM - You live in a state that has an NFL franchise whose nickname is literally a racial slur. Your post just suggested people from the Midwest are inbred. I think you need to look in the mirror about defamatory comments.

amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1748
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

Re: U.S. Bank Stadium Construction Updates

Postby amiller92 » March 15th, 2016, 8:56 am

VikingFaninMaryland wrote:A comment from the StarTribune article “Minneapolis planners reject Vikings bid to rename Chicago Avenue” March 14, 2016: “Can't stand Vikings ownership is shysters from New Jersey”
Which of us said that here? As the answer is none of us, why are you writing about it here?

Archiapolis
Foshay Tower
Posts: 818
Joined: November 2nd, 2012, 8:59 am

Re: U.S. Bank Stadium Construction Updates

Postby Archiapolis » March 15th, 2016, 9:10 am

Wedgeguy wrote:
Daboink wrote:
Wedgeguy wrote:Planning commission today on an 8-0 vote said no to the Viking Way. Still needs to go before the full council, but I'm hoping that this is the end of this silly renaming games.
Don't rush, Mr. Frey says he would be willing to barter back public rights to the Commons Park in exchange for a name change. To me that would be worth it 100%.
That is an interesting twist I did not see coming or even think about. But I'll surely let Mr. Frey barter for the Commons back. To me the public access to the best weekends should go to us the public, not the for profit Viking or the MSFA who really have no use other that to try and get some money out of shows and concerts to pad their bonuses. I wish Mr. Frey the best of luck with his barter. Will be interesting to see what the Viking will give up for that name change, if it really is such an issue.

Maybe if we get the park back in the public realm, we will see donation start up again to finish the park with amenities that will make the park a great PUBLIC space. For a truly public park, I'll give in to a name change.
I'd support them calling this Wilf St if they give up exclusive rights AND put in a nice chunk of change to fund the park. I know that others would disagree because of the vociferous arguments above. Best of luck to Frey!

Qhaberl
Foshay Tower
Posts: 804
Joined: February 25th, 2016, 9:51 am

Re: U.S. Bank Stadium Construction Updates

Postby Qhaberl » March 15th, 2016, 9:10 am

I thaught this fourm was for talking about the stadium construction. Can we get some Admins to take out all the stuff about the street naming. At the end of the day, does it really matter what the street is named.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7927
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: U.S. Bank Stadium Construction Updates

Postby mattaudio » March 15th, 2016, 9:21 am

That's not what the Vikings think.

The name change request is definitely news related to the stadium construction. The fact that the area's CM, and public testimony at yesterday's CPC meeting, brought up the idea/possibility of using this as a bargaining chip for other things is also related news, though it could be in the Commons thread if anything materializes in that direction.

It's interesting to see how one crowd including myself complains about the stadium (now a separate financing thread) but it's a different group getting in a fuss about yesterday's denial of this proposal.

Didier
Capella Tower
Posts: 2430
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 10:11 am
Location: MSP

Re: U.S. Bank Stadium Construction Updates

Postby Didier » March 15th, 2016, 10:00 am

I think most people honestly could care less if a random stretch of street was renamed to commemorate a new stadium instead of an old stadium.

I think a group of people here are adamantly opposed to renaming the street — within their right! — which is resulting in people like me now defending the name change, even though I don't really care.

I think the fact that the Vikings are asking for a name change instead of a commemorative name offers an easily-cleared compromise.

And I think the fact that Jabob Frey is using this request to try to leverage more money for the underfunded park is a great development.

So, in conclusion, I think we'll be all right.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4759
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: U.S. Bank Stadium Construction Updates

Postby David Greene » March 15th, 2016, 10:16 am

VikingFaninMaryland wrote: 2) the City Council offered to reassess their decision if the Vikings surrender the rights they bargained in good faith for in negotiations with the State of Minnesota
Oh that's rich. The Wilfs are savvy businessmen for negotiating, and negotiating hard, but when the city negotiates, it's "unfair."

Rube Dali
Metrodome
Posts: 91
Joined: August 31st, 2015, 11:21 pm
Location: Maplewood, MN
Contact:

Re: U.S. Bank Stadium Construction Updates

Postby Rube Dali » March 15th, 2016, 7:41 pm

The US Bank Stadium Twitter account has this gem: https://twitter.com/usbankstadium/statu ... 88?lang=en

Oh, and on the interior webcam, there's water leaking into the western upper deck.
Buildings, what buildings?

User avatar
Chip Whitley
Metrodome
Posts: 77
Joined: January 14th, 2015, 2:27 am
Location: MPLS

Re: U.S. Bank Stadium Construction Updates

Postby Chip Whitley » March 15th, 2016, 11:32 pm

Rube Dali wrote:The US Bank Stadium Twitter account has this gem: https://twitter.com/usbankstadium/statu ... 88?lang=en
Interestingly, Target Center is also making a "major concert announcement" tomorrow morning. So we could be getting 2 big name artists here this year. I guess we'll know in 7 hours.

Yourpalborno
City Center
Posts: 41
Joined: October 8th, 2012, 1:09 pm
Location: Bryant
Contact:

Re: U.S. Bank Stadium Construction Updates

Postby Yourpalborno » March 16th, 2016, 7:49 am


User avatar
Chip Whitley
Metrodome
Posts: 77
Joined: January 14th, 2015, 2:27 am
Location: MPLS

Re: U.S. Bank Stadium Construction Updates

Postby Chip Whitley » March 16th, 2016, 8:31 am

It appears they are planning a big opening weekend. Starting with Luke Bryan on Friday, then Metallica on Saturday, and a very possible pre-season game on Sunday. A little something for everyone. 3 major events in about 48 hours. Reminds me of the time back in 2006? when the Metrodome hosted the Twins, a Gophers football game, and I think a Vikings game all in the same weekend.


Return to “Minneapolis - Downtown”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest