urbanMSP

Don't worry, any design flaw in the stadium or mistake by the Vikings will quickly be turned into a positive by VikingFanInMaryland. Bigger question it what one Viking is he a fan of, and what does he have against the rest of the team. Im guessing the one Viking is Ziggy!!

Yes, but that also allows much greater flexibility depending on the events at the stadium. I'll be curious to see what the plaza set up is for things such as the Twin Cities Marathon...

1st world problems... Chain link fencing - Oh the humanity!!

We spent a billion dollars on a stadium. I'd say a design that needs what seems like miles of temporary fencing is a non-trivial fail.

The good news is that there was a time when it seemed like they intent was to leave that fencing up all of the time, usually blocking the "bike lane" the put across the plaza. But they clean it all up at the beginning of last week, so it's probably just a Friday-to-Monday annoyance on home game weeks. Which isn't nothing either.

Our friend in Maryland is right that they take security seriously (although I'd wager the terror risk is substantially over-stated), and I can see wanting to be able to leave the plaza largely open when there isn't a game, but that doesn't explain why they need temporary fencing (in some cases in addition to shorter, permanent fencing) on the south side. There are plenty of areas that either could have had permanent fencing, if needed, or could have had the existing fencing serve the same function.

We spent a billion dollars on a stadium. I'd say a design that needs what seems like miles of temporary fencing is a non-trivial fail.

The good news is that there was a time when it seemed like they intent was to leave that fencing up all of the time, usually blocking the "bike lane" the put across the plaza. But they clean it all up at the beginning of last week, so it's probably just a Friday-to-Monday annoyance on home game weeks. Which isn't nothing either.

Our friend in Maryland is right that they take security seriously (although I'd wager the terror risk is substantially over-stated), and I can see wanting to be able to leave the plaza largely open when there isn't a game, but that doesn't explain why they need temporary fencing (in some cases in addition to shorter, permanent fencing) on the south side. There are plenty of areas that either could have had permanent fencing, if needed, or could have had the existing fencing serve the same function.

There are two inter-related but separate issues. There is 1) the permanent design of the stadium plaza that incorporates basic security measures into the design and 2), the specific deployment of a security regime based on the threat condition as put out by the NCTC in conjunction with the current security package associated with that condition. Security packages change with different conditions and, over time, the threat packages themselves change based on technology and evolution of concepts. Hence, the goal isn’t to design public spaces so they incorporate the most stringent security measures but rather to design them so they can accommodate heightened security measures when they arise. The stadium plaza does that.

Noting that the NFL really does consult closely with the FBI, DHS and NCTC on terrorism questions, when the CT folks inform them of specific or general threats, they will also inform them of the associated threat level and, if asked, will provide advise on the lay-down of a security plan associated with that threat level. The decision to put in canalizing fencing is a product of that discussion, not of one with the architects in the design of the plaza.

If the threat conditions go down, the more stringent security measures can be peeled back. At certain threat conditions, there is a requirement to limit and control access points while canalizing traffic flows to them. As such, the disruptive fencing – that actually runs counter to the designed flow of the stadium plaza (a key tell that it is non-permanent) - suggests that it reflects that certain threat package is deployed that equates with a published threat condition. The fencing associated with a current security package is non-permanent and not an element of the stadiums design consideration one way or the other.

If this is true, it is highly probable that every NFL stadium is dong the same thing.

Reasons for taking terror threats serious with regard to sporting events, especially football, are well grounded. A few data points:

• In the Winter 2013 Inspire Magazine (Issue 9) on page 24, it was stated that “the type of attack, which repels states and topples governments, is mass slaughter of the population. This is done by targeting human crowds in order to inflict maximum human losses. This is very easy since there are numerous such targets such as crowded sports arenas.” Inspire is al-Qaeda’s English language periodical.
  
  In October 2005, a person assembling a suicide vest detonated himself prematurely during assembly outside University of Oklahoma Stadium at game time. The plan was to arm it before going into the stadium and to detonate it among the crowd.
  
  Al-Qaeda and ISIS designated 2016 as the year that initiates the “period of all out confrontation”. In December 2015, an ISIS cell attacked a soccer game in Paris which the French President was attending.
  
  In June 2016, Belgian special services arrested an ISIS cell as they were preparing to attack the Euro soccer tournament in Brussels.
  
  In January 2014, an exposition the forensically matches a bomb explosion was attributed to a gas leak in Minneapolis within sight of the new stadium. There were no gas lines in the area and the gas company was adamant, for cause, which the explosion could not have been caused by gas leak. Police stated it was a gas leak. Pictures of the blast area support that bomb position. Before a forensic team could properly examine the blast site, it was demolished. (That caused a WTF moment) While the situation disappeared from the news in Minneapolis, it remains an ongoing object of discussion among CT groups in D.C. and NYC leading some public interest groups to go so far as to submit formal FOIA requests for documents in anticipation of hearings.

Apologies, I wrote the last entry late at night. The final section should read:

• In January 2014, an exposition that forensically (and very obviously) matches a bomb explosion was attributed to a gas leak in Minneapolis within sight of the Metrodome (and now the new stadium). There were no gas lines in the area which is why the gas company was adamant - for cause - that the explosion could not have been caused by a gas leak. Yet investigators held with their insistence that it was a gas leak. Pictures of the blast area not only (obviously) supports the position that the explosion supports the bomb blast view, but also that it it did not look bear the signature forensic signs of a gas explosion. Most irregular, before a forensic team could properly examine the blast site, it was demolished. (Now that's a WTF moment!) While the event disappeared from the news in Minneapolis, it remains an ongoing object of discussion among CT groups in D.C. and NYC [not just the explosion, but the mischaracterization of the blast, the pre-mature destruction of the (crime?) scene and the fact that one of the actors was on an EU CT watchlist] leading some public interest groups to go so far as to submit formal FOIA requests for documents in anticipation of hearings on the event. (I was on the West Bank a day later and was greatly relieved to see that Palmers was still open, it was the main dive when I lived in Middlebrook Hall).
  
  And I failed to note that bombs went off in a soccer stadium - Stade de France in July 2016, a fake bomb was detonated at a Manchester United soccer event, and the a bomb killed fans at the France Germany soccer game in 2015

"Substantially overstated"? Not a question of if, but of when and where.

You're talking about the New Year's Day Cedar Ave explosion, right? Is there anyone besides alt-right loons that think it was terrorism?

You're talking about the New Year's Day Cedar Ave explosion, right? Is there anyone besides alt-right loons that think it was terrorism?

No. They think it was either a non-functioning gas heater (as it was extremely cold that night if you recall the images of the water freezing on the building), a natural gas leak, or the cold cracked the toilet trap and released methane gas.

If it was a conspiracy cover-up, it was very elaborate, as the MPD, the MFD and the state fire marshal all agree it was not arson.

It was right in the heart of the 'Sharia Law No-Go Zone' though.

[too many words, as usual]

That's great and all, but the events so far have been concerts, a soccer game and one pre-season game, all with the same security features. So, whatever.

Also, you're defending temporary fencing you've presumably not even seen. Why?

"Substantially overstated"? Not a question of if, but of when and where.

First, cite your sources (that sounds pretty darn paranoid, especially when discussing a fire in a 100 year old building).

Second, yeah, it's a question of when and where, but there are tens (hundreds?) of thousands of venues and millions of events, thus the probability of an attack at any given event is super small.

Anyway, I don't think anybody is questioning the need for security features.

The question being asked is, "Why does it have to look so half-assed, poorly executed, and generally janky?"

The chain link fencing, for example, is clearly not going to prevent a truck bomb, or even going to prevent a person from scaling it. It's just general crowd control stuff. There are much more elegant and deliberate ways this could have been handled.

Perhaps they're just doing things on the cheap this season until they get a handle on the crowd flow fluid dynamics and then will roll out something more deliberate next year.

I'm always kind of impressed by the people who thinks the government is too incompetent to run anything except wide-ranging coverups involving multiple agencies and dozens (hundreds?) of people.

I'm always kind of impressed by the people who thinks the government is too incompetent to run anything except wide-ranging coverups involving multiple agencies and dozens (hundreds?) of people.

All of the +++++++++++++++

Anyway, I don't think anybody is questioning the need for security features.

The question being asked is, "Why does it have to look so half-assed, poorly executed, and generally janky?"

The chain link fencing, for example, is clearly not going to prevent a truck bomb, or even going to prevent a person from scaling it. It's just general crowd control stuff. There are much more elegant and deliberate ways this could have been handled.

Perhaps they're just doing things on the cheap this season until they get a handle on the crowd flow fluid dynamics and then will roll out something more deliberate next year.

Anyway, I don't think anybody is questioning the need for security features.

The question being asked is, "Why does it have to look so half-assed, poorly executed, and generally janky?"

Totally legitimate question but to try to address it in a rational manner, I think the NFL, etc are in a tough spot: if you make this area as secure as you want to for the games, they'd "need" a lot of fencing/barricading etc that would be there permanently and then we'd ALL be up in arms because it would look like a prison.

The chain link fencing, for example, is clearly not going to prevent a truck bomb, or even going to prevent a person from scaling it. It's just general crowd control stuff. There are much more elegant and deliberate ways this could have been handled.

My Dad has been working security for the Arizona Cardinal games and he is blown away by the security - DHS, FBI, under-cover agents, bomb-sniffing dogs, cameras, shooters at elevated positions, etc that ViM mentions.

My Dad said that once they have had the bomb-sniffing dogs go through on a Saturday afternoon/evening game that the stadium is LOCKED down and on game day, there are "LEOs" (law enforcement officers) with "long guns" (read automatic weapons) throughout the stadium and those are the visible ones. It isn't a matter of someone being able to scale the fences so much as "the fence makes climbing difficult and time consuming and gives more time for threat assessment and...elimination."

I worked on an FBI building in Detroit once and trying to make very high security seem hospitable and humane at the same time is very difficult - to add the variable that it shouldn't be permanent is yet another challenge.

Perhaps they're just doing things on the cheap this season until they get a handle on the crowd flow fluid dynamics and then will roll out something more deliberate next year.

I think that this is very possible/plausible.

I know the basic arguments for locating the stadium where it is (primarily leveraging existing infrastructure both public and private and questionable claims of economic development), but maybe this is just an excellent reason that they should have been sent to Arden Hills (or wherever).

If the Stadium were built in a "Corn Field" then there would be no roads or bike lanes to block with security walls. There would be no Light Rail line requiring large, unsightly, expensive, and pointless-on-355-days-a-year bridges. There would be no (or at least fewer) massive downtown superblocks with extremely limited pedestrian presence. There would be no temporary security theater to fill any new Public Plaza that could be built if we wanted to.

The city of Minneapolis could have still spent 20 million of its own on a new park and then leveraged bonds to build a parking ramp if they want. Heck, that new parking ramp (the stated driving factor for Wells Fargo) probably cost a lot less than the $150 million that the city chipped in to build the stadium.

But also, how about those "USBank Stadium Construction Updates"... I think it's done.

If we were going to have a stadium, it absolutely had to be in one of the cities. We want to draw people to the cities. It's a good thing that tens of thousands of people can experience the city, even for only one day a year.

If we're going to have public funds go to a stadium, it absolutely had to be in one of the cities.

If Zygi wanted to pay for Arden Hills himself, then fine. But he wasn't offering that.

Yeah the old Met Stadium was paid for by Minneapolis and now Bloomington thinks everyone "owes" them something in return.

I can summarize VikingFan's argument. Having an open Plaza and temporary security equipment/infrastructure (like fencing) allows flexibility; the ability to change the security set up depending on threat levels, the kind of event, the prominence of an event, changing technology (as time passes), whatever. Flexibility is a very tangible and easy to understand benefit. The Plaza not looking like a prison is a bonus. Remember that they're hosting the super bowl here. I wouldn't want that level of security presence to be permanent.