U.S. Bank Stadium

[acs]

Meh, I still like ours better. We definitely have one of the most urban NFL stadiums in the league, especially with the new towers and development coming right up to the edge of the building. Plus our stadium has way more glass and a far better view of the skyline, even if the roof can't open. Most stadiums are surrounded by blocks of parking and are far outside the urban core, while ours is within 2 blocks of the CBD and will eventually/already is surrounded by new highrise development.

[MN Fats]

Most stadiums are surrounded by blocks of parking and are far outside the urban core, while ours is within 2 blocks of the CBD and will eventually/already is surrounded by new highrise development.

My first instinct was to agree with you, but I found this chart which reveals it's actually a pretty even mix among urban/cbd/suburban stadium locations in the NFL.




http://nextstl.com/2013/02/nfl-stadiums/

[mister.shoes]

I highly suspect it's going to feel cold and sterile

I should clarify myself: I based my statement on admittedly flimsy evidence, but here we go. From watching a lot of football on TV, I've noticed that a lot of the newer stadiums—especially domed ones—feel very generic and empty inside regardless of the number of people packed in. Ford Field and Lucas Oil, being two of the newest, are especially bad. I say all this without being able to put my finger on what's wrong and/or missing. I think it's simply the fact that everything is so huge it overwhelms the field itself as well as the spectators.

I hope ours is different. I don't want it to feel generic and empty and lifeless. I hope it's noisy as hell and the clear roof makes for a unique indoor/outdoor experience.

[acs]

http://finance-commerce.com/2015/01/msf ... ject-cost/

In other stadium news, fritted glass would add $60 million to the cost and potentially delay it up to 6 months. It's a no-go at this point.

[Wedgeguy]

and i don't like the walker expansion, in retrospect. it's a hulking, cold presence on hennepin. it should be more light and transparent.

To be fair, it's hard to make something light and transparent without windows and windows are a liability for an art gallery.

You are correct with the light and art, but that section of the Walker is where the performing art center is, Again, windows and preforming art center do not go together as well.

Mullen I don't think that you have ever been in the Walker and understand the build. Other wise your comment would not have been posted.

[J2K]

I highly suspect it's going to feel cold and sterile

I should clarify myself: I based my statement on admittedly flimsy evidence, but here we go. From watching a lot of football on TV, I've noticed that a lot of the newer stadiums—especially domed ones—feel very generic and empty inside regardless of the number of people packed in. Ford Field and Lucas Oil, being two of the newest, are especially bad. I say all this without being able to put my finger on what's wrong and/or missing. I think it's simply the fact that everything is so huge it overwhelms the field itself as well as the spectators.

I hope ours is different. I don't want it to feel generic and empty and lifeless. I hope it's noisy as hell and the clear roof makes for a unique indoor/outdoor experience.

I think you're comparing apples to oranges here. Lucas oil is like a giant warehouse on steroids and Ford Field is about as bland as they come and was built on the cheap. XYZabc Stadium will be in a class all by itself. Most games are at noon and I think it will be very bright inside with the transparent roof facing the sun (south). Not to mention the open end facing downtown.

[LakeCharles]

Most stadiums are surrounded by blocks of parking and are far outside the urban core, while ours is within 2 blocks of the CBD and will eventually/already is surrounded by new highrise development.

My first instinct was to agree with you, but I found this chart which reveals it's actually a pretty even mix among urban/cbd/suburban stadium locations in the NFL.




http://nextstl.com/2013/02/nfl-stadiums/

Candlestick doesn't exist anymore, the Niners now play in the suburbs. O.co is in Oakland, but is in a sea of parking lots surrounded by canals and freeways. You couldn't walk there.

[mister.shoes]

I highly suspect it's going to feel cold and sterile

I should clarify myself: I based my statement on admittedly flimsy evidence, but here we go. From watching a lot of football on TV, I've noticed that a lot of the newer stadiums—especially domed ones—feel very generic and empty inside regardless of the number of people packed in. Ford Field and Lucas Oil, being two of the newest, are especially bad. I say all this without being able to put my finger on what's wrong and/or missing. I think it's simply the fact that everything is so huge it overwhelms the field itself as well as the spectators.

I hope ours is different. I don't want it to feel generic and empty and lifeless. I hope it's noisy as hell and the clear roof makes for a unique indoor/outdoor experience.

I think you're comparing apples to oranges here. Lucas oil is like a giant warehouse on steroids and Ford Field is about as bland as they come and was built on the cheap. XYZabc Stadium will be in a class all by itself. Most games are at noon and I think it will be very bright inside with the transparent roof facing the sun (south). Not to mention the open end facing downtown.

I *hope* I'm comparing apples and oranges! I really do! Until XYZabc stadium is finished, all we can do is watch games in the newest stadiums around the league and try to translate those experiences to our future. The Vikings spent a lot of time talking about how much they loved Lucas Oil and JerryWorld down in TX—so much so that they hired the same architect. XYZabc looks to be every bit as oversized as those that came before it; hence my fears. But like I said, I really hope I'm wrong and that big ol' sandcrawler in DTE turns out to be a gem.

[moda253]

There is no other stadium in the country that is like what we are getting. There are some European soccer stadiums that are similar but even still nothing with the size of ETFE roof that we are putting in. Short of making the entire roof etfe I don't know how we could have as much natural light without being an open aired stadium. But I think I understand the concern for the feeling of a monstrous structure surrounding you. It's my argument against retractable stadiums in general. Most of the time retractables are closed with the slightest hint of precipitation and that's because although they can be open there likely isn't enough drainage and electronics weatherproofing to handle full on elements. Also, the amount of infrastructure needed to make a retractable feature work is massive. Even when it's open you still feel the presence of the structure surrounding you. There's no getting away from that. Miller park in Milwaukee doesn't even feel open when it is open. There's still a couple stories of the building taller than the stands even when it is open.

And that is my problem with the Atlanta building. Of course artists renderings don't show the final product but look at how much and where the sunlight from the opening is projected to show. It is hardly even open. And the circular scoreboard had better be a lot larger in circumference than the artists rendering or it will be completely useless. Cool idea but I don't see how it is going to be very practical in use. The Atlanta stadium looks to be MUCH more cold and cavernous even with it's retractable feature because the vast majority of the roof is opaque whether the retractable option is open or not. Whereas I think our stadium is around 40% clear/translucent.... That is if it isn't covered in dead birds.

[TommyT]

That is if it isn't covered in dead birds.

^^ I LOLed REAL loud.

[IllogicalJake]

Speaking of dead birds, a new update...

Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority officials can't seem to decide what they hate about bird-safe glass at the new Minnesota Vikings stadium. But they definitely hate it.
[...]
First it was cost: the MSFA said it didn't have the $1.1 million to make the glass visible enough so birds wouldn't crash into it.
Then the stadium's budget kept ballooning, as designers added things like extra TVs, escalators and other finishes, and the story changed.
" It's not a cost issue, it's a design issue," said MSFA Chair Michele Kelm-Helgen in August, adding that fritted glass would make it too dark inside the stadium and impair people's views of downtown.
Now, it seems, it's a cost issue again — as much as $60 million, Kelm-Helgen says, because changing the design now would push the entire stadium project into 2017.

As they've stated before, the glass is already in production and is expected to begin installation soon. I don't think anyone's expected them to make the switch at this point in the process, but don't blame the Audubon Society for that - they've been trying to talk to the MSFA, as they do for most taller downtown projects, for over three years now. If MSFA had found a fritted glass solution originally, the cost would've only been $1.1 mil.

[mattaudio]

A big paid-off marshmallow didn't kill birds...

[fehler]

Yes, Falcons did very well there, in particular.

[J2K]

How can these bird lovers be so sure? The glass side faces west. Birds migrate north and south. I'm also pretty sure their only route isn't through the stadium, lol. Let's ban house cats too, those terrible bird killing monsters! I have never seen a dead bird downtown, so it's not like there would be many in the first place. These people are really getting out of hand. No birds will go extinct because of a damn stadium. Get over it. It's being built.

[nordeast homer]

I actually question whether birds would die if they hit the product. If they were going full speed maybe. I was at the preview center a while back and they had a couple of panels of this stuff; it's not rigid at all, it's kind of like hitting a trampoline. It's also not like the product is invisible, there's a bit of cloudiness to it. Maybe at night it's different...

[IllogicalJake]

This game again? Are you really so confident that you're smarter than the aviary experts of the Audubon Society that have dedicated their careers to research? These aren't just bird-loving hippies.

How can these bird lovers be so sure? The glass side faces west. Birds migrate north and south.

Birds don't have actual compasses like you're imagining, they follow routes defined by land, which is typically rivers. More birds migrate along the Mississippi than any river in the US, as much as half of North America's birds travel along the Mississippi.

I have never seen a dead bird downtown, so it's not like there would be many in the first place.

Are we really going with the "It's never affected me, so it's clearly not a problem at all" argument here? Even the lowest estimate says 300 Million birds (Highest estimate, 1 billion) are killed by buildings each year in NA, and it only takes minimal effort to make your building bird-safe, which all of downtown's tall buildings have either complied with or not needed in the first place (due to low amounts of clear glass.)

The Audubon Society has worked with downtown buildings this whole time, they didn't magically show up for the stadium.

These people are really getting out of hand. No birds will go extinct because of a damn stadium. Get over it. It's being built.

Nobody, especially not the Audubon Society, has asked to stop the stadium from being built because of this issue. Are you just making things up at this point?

No, birds are not expected to go extinct. But it can still harm their population during essential migration. The Audubon Society is acting on the interest of downtown Minneapolis, with approval from City Council, to work with every downtown project to ensure that it is safe for the migratory habits of birds.

I actually question whether birds would die if they hit the product.

There is no question to this. Yes, glass kills birds. Birds are flying at full speed and can reach over 30 MPH. A small animal crashing into unexpected glass at 30 MPG means dead bird, even at 10 MPH. Even if they could "bounce off," they'd die on impact hitting the ground.

TL;DR:
The Audubon Society is not claiming that massive amounts of birds will die. They're doing their due diligence, with approval from the city, to work with every project to ensure it is environmentally safe. The Vikings are the first time a group has publicly denied the request.

But hey, I'll stop it with the actual facts, easily searchable on Google, and let people get back to "LOL BIRDS!"

[IllogicalJake]

It's cool if you personally don't care about birds, but at least respect the findings of those that devote their career to aviary research and protection, and the job the city wants them to do.

How quickly their actual facts and research are dismissed by you guys with unfounded opinions really amazes me given the smarter-than-average group that makes up this forum... What gives with this topic?

You don't like it when a NIMBY ignores facts but when it's just animals, everyone's an expert...

[mplsjaromir]

^^^^Well said Jake.

[J2K]

[/quote]
Are we really going with the "It's never affected me, so it's clearly not a problem at all" argument here? Even the lowest estimate says 300 Million birds (Highest estimate, 1 billion) are killed by buildings each year in NA.

How many are killed per year by house cats? What's being done about them?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... y/1873871/

[mattaudio]

Irrelevant. We're not spending massive amounts of public money to give piles of bird-killing housecats to a convicted civil racketeer.