Vikings Stadium Miscellaneous Discussion

[BigIdeasGuy]

A few quick thought on this thread since my last post.

1. The Dome was always a fine NFL building, never great but just fine. It sucked for both college football (for atmosphere reason's primarily) and baseball (because of terrible sight lines)

2. All academic literature points to new stadiums not having any positive impact on local economy's either during construction or use. But it terms of ROI the cost of basketball and hockey are going to have great value due to fact we are building the stadium anyways. In fact I would argue to not include plans for basketball and hockey would be a complete and total failure on the MFSA part.

3. I sure hope the person comparing the CFL to the NFL was joking. Because that would be like comparing something below the Playwright Center to the Guthrie, Hennepin Theater Trust, Ordway, and Chanhassen combine multiplied by about 523. There is simply no way you can compare the two.

[JMS9]

BC Place has had a $528 million dollar remodel.

Which is a hell of a lot cheaper than $1.x billion!

FYI, the CFL is not the NFL.

Exactly. Comparing anything CFL to the NFL is like saying the Twins didn't need Target Field because the Saints do Ok at Midway. It's not even apples to oranges, it's grapes to watermelons.

[David Greene]

FYI, the CFL is not the NFL.

Exactly. Comparing anything CFL to the NFL is like saying the Twins didn't need Target Field because the Saints do Ok at Midway. It's not even apples to oranges, it's grapes to watermelons.

I was not equating the CFL to the NFL. I was pointing out that BC Place, with essentially the same design as the HHH Metrodome, has worked find as a professional football stadium and continues to do so. As far as I know, the CFL game is not that different from the NFL game in terms of field needs, sightlines, etc.

Again, if the HHH Metrodome was fine as a fan experience in 1980, what changed? And don't tell me "Luxury boxes! Club seating!" because 99% of fans will never use those. Let's be clear, this stadium isn't being built for the fans. It's being built to make the Wilf's money. There's nothing inherently wrong with that but the way some people talk about it, it seems like they've really got the blinders on. There *is* something inherently wrong with putting $1 billion of public money into a project that really only benefits the obscenely wealthy.

At least with the Bank and Target Field one could credibly make an argument that the average fan's experience is greatly enhanced.

[IllogicalJake]

At least with the Bank and Target Field one could credibly make an argument that the average fan's experience is greatly enhanced.

So you're insisting that 99% of fans will not have a better experience at the new stadium vs. the Metrodome, that it'll be almost no difference?

Are we talking about the same stadium here?

"The stadium is an eyesore. It has horrible plastic blue seats and the facilities are also the kind that make you want to wait until you go home. Plus it looks like something out of Tron; its nickname is the big inflatable toilet for a reason."

"Now, Minnesota fans walk into a carpeted tomb, where nobody takes off their shirt, and they scream only when the scoreboard tells them to. I blame these changes on the stadium much more than the fans. Going to the "Rollerdome," as Ditka calls it, is like watching a game in your living room, sitting next to your mother-in-law!"

"Hands down, the Metrodome stinks. I can't wait for the day I get to bring the popcorn and watch it implode."

^ These are quotes from average fans commenting on a "Worst stadium in the NFL" poll, before the new stadium was announced. Will the new stadium really not change their experience?

[minnyapple]

In other news they started taking down the actual metrodome the other day. You can see the progress on the stadium view of the webcam.

http://www.vikings.com/stadium/new-stadium/webcam.html

[Wedgeguy]

Just using the things I found different from the Twins games at the Dome and Target Field. Much better bathrooms with few lines especially for the ladies! The food concessions were in a whole different league. You could get food that you actually wanted to eat and those that were actually healthy for you. Those are rare, but it is still mostly comfort food. As a Season ticket holder I was able to use the Metropolitan Club which I don't think there was an equivalent of in the Dome. This is an amenity that all that want to buy a season ticket packet get to use. You don't have to spend a fortune for season ticket packages, but it sure is nice to pop in there on a hot summer day to cool off in the A/C for a bit. These are things that help to improve the fan experience. Real Jumbotrons for replays, dodging foul balls, doing the wave, these are things that makes the experience great and why people will pay money to watch at the ballpark instead of just watching it on TV.
Back when the Metrodome was built, we did not have 100 cable sports channels to watch every game on. You wanted to see a baseball or football game you pretty much had to be there to really feel like you were a part of the game. Now with about 2 dozen camera angles, it is more enjoyable to watch them at home. It is call the customer or fan experience. The Dome you pretty much had an ok customer experience. Today you need to sell the fan experience to get people away from the cable channels. Why stand in a 10 minute line to take a leak, have a slim selection of choices for snacks and long lines due to not enough concessions per person, and sit in very uncomfortable seats for a poor game day experience. The Dome when it was built was a new experiment that only Houston had tried to do before them. Houston build a palace that we up here could not afford, But we did out best with what we knew at the time and what we had for a budget to make a place to play sports. This was before we knew we had to have a fan experience to sell later in the decades to come.
It is happening, there is much better planning for other uses being able to fit into the new stadium than they did the old dome. They are doing thinks to make for a better fan experience. Whether it is more restrooms, better food options, more LED screens to show replays, or comfortable seating for all. Those that come to the Stadium for games, concerts, motocross, and exhibitions will all have a better time while there compared to the old Dome.

[David Greene]

At least with the Bank and Target Field one could credibly make an argument that the average fan's experience is greatly enhanced.

So you're insisting that 99% of fans will not have a better experience at the new stadium vs. the Metrodome, that it'll be almost no difference?

No, I'm saying the differences aren't worth $1 billion of public money. Seats - easy to fix. Bathrooms - easy to fix (though adding additional ones takes a bit more money). Jumbotron - easy to fix. Food options - *really* easy to fix. Better club room for season ticket holders - easy to fix. Exterior looks - does that really significantly affect the fan experience? Even if it does, BC Place shows that even that can be fixed for much less money.

Again, if it was good enough in 1980, why wasn't it good enough now with maybe some relatively simple improvements?

Look, I know the decision's been made but I think it's important to dissect it and learn from our mistakes.

[IllogicalJake]

At least with the Bank and Target Field one could credibly make an argument that the average fan's experience is greatly enhanced.

So you're insisting that 99% of fans will not have a better experience at the new stadium vs. the Metrodome, that it'll be almost no difference?

Again, if it was good enough in 1980, why wasn't it good enough now with maybe some relatively simple improvements?

Actually, the post right above yours tackles that question and answers it pretty well.

[David Greene]

Again, if it was good enough in 1980, why wasn't it good enough now with maybe some relatively simple improvements?

Actually, the post right above yours tackles that question and answers it pretty well.

I tried to address the points that I feel are true fan experience improvements (bathrooms, concessions, etc.). Anything having to do with "we must MOAR because TV, etc." is Wilf propaganda.

[Wedgeguy]

ROTFL, Have you ever tried to add a bathroom to any house you have lived in? It costs a fortune, part of which is getting plumbing routed to the new bathrooms, let alone that there was not space set aside for new bathrooms. By the time you would have to move a bunch of other stuff to make way for the bathrooms , you then have to find places for what you displaces. Would water lines have to be upgraded over all for the increased water pressure need for water flow, Increase sewage capacity as well. This all again comes into play if you are going to add real concession areas with real kitchens like most other stadiums. You start to see why it is cheaper to start over that to try and remodel or retrofit an existing building. Just the facts as I see them.

[mplsjaromir]

All academic literature points to new stadiums not having any positive impact on local economy's either during construction or use.

Point to one.

[Viktor Vaughn]

This thread is maddening. Why are you guys trying so hard to justify this travesty? Isn't this a stadium construction thread?

Or is that something that only gets pointed out when someone takes the bait and refutes your ridiculous arguments?

[fehler]

Looking at the aerial webcam view, there's a hole in the side right next to a Target logo sign. Since all other banners/streamers seem to be removed, I can only guess that they specifically put up a Target ad so people zooming in on the destruction will see it.

Is Target sponsoring the destruction of the HHH?

[Didier]

I'm not sure if David Greene is trolling, but his simplistic comments make it feel like this is just an exercise is provoking tired, talking points. Nonetheless:

1. Renovating the Metrodome really has nothing to do with renovating BC Place. According to an often-cited 2009 estimate, adequately renovating the Metrodome would have cost $967.4 million. That number is probably high, but either way, renovating the Metrodome was never a serious option because it was expensive and the renovations still resulted in a flawed stadium. And speaking of that...

2. The Metrodome in 1980 was never the Taj Mahal. It was always a cheap, multi-use stadium that sacrificed amenities and charm to efficiency and versatility. This was common for stadiums of that era, and it has proven to be a mistake, which is why all of those stadiums are being replaced.

3. Finally, everything being discussed in this thread is window dressing, and (I hope) we all know that. The Vikings got a new stadium because the Metrodome was among the least profitable stadiums in the NFL. Without a new stadium, the Wilfs could have moved the team and made up that profit in another city. We had no good option on the table but, through our elected representatives, we determined that keeping the Vikings in town was worth this massive subsidy. That's really all there is to it. If the only issues on the table were concessions and toilets, we would never have gotten to this point to begin with.

[David Greene]

Without a new stadium, the Wilfs could have moved the team and made up that profit in another city. We had no good option on the table but, through our elected representatives, we determined that keeping the Vikings in town was worth this massive subsidy. That's really all there is to it.

If that's all there was to it then we really got suckered.

There was zero chance - ZERO - that the Vikings would leave any time soon. Where would they have gone? LA was a red herring to scare people. Those threats were at the same level as the threat to contract the Twins (which I've always contended was a bargaining chip in negotiations with MLBPA, not a threat to get a new ballpark).

Ok, I'm done arguing about this for now.

[nordeast homer]

David-
Is there any scenario in which you would think that this investment in this stadium is a good thing? It's an honest question without snark.
I believe that if we continue to see development and investment around the stadium, long term, that this was a good overall investment. I'm hoping this area will rival what Target Field has done on the west side. Just as long as the two don't cancel each other out.

[Wedgeguy]

David-
Is there any scenario in which you would think that this investment in this stadium is a good thing? It's an honest question without snark.
I believe that if we continue to see development and investment around the stadium, long term, that this was a good overall investment. I'm hoping this area will rival what Target Field has done on the west side. Just as long as the two don't cancel each other out.

I agree, with the old adage, it takes money to make money. I'll be bringing that up at tonight's meeting, investments in our community is to make them better and more profitable to the stakeholders in the long run.

[Mdcastle]

I have to agree that the Vikings wouldn't have wound up in LA. A blog from that area laid it out why:
http://www.footballphds.com/2012/04/18/ ... s-angeles/

Besides being considered a "legacy team" as opposed to say Jacksonville, the leagues relocation criteria are:

1. The team's service to its current city and stadium;
2. Fan loyalty;
3. Stadium adequacy;
4. Public financial support of the team by the city and taxpayers;
5. Team's financial performance;
6. Whether there is already a team in the relocation city;
7. Team's attempt to address stadium situations in its current city;
8. Degree to which the team may have contributed to stadium problems;
9. Relocation demographics;
10. Effect of relocation on current television contracts and labor agreements;
11. Effect of relocation on anticipated television contracts, particularly as related to media market size;
12. Effect of relocation on NFL division alignments, rivalries, travel requirements, etc.
The Vikings do not satisfy all twelve criteria, particularly criteria 1, 2, 5, and 12. Conversely, the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders satisfy all twelve criteria for relocation.

I would have preferred Arden Hills or Blaine, but no sense arguing that now; hopefully the new stadium and park results in a clean-up of the area. At some point it's tempting to cave in and give a screaming toddler the candy, even if you know they're not going to run away from home and go to grandma's house, which is what ultimately happened here.

[FISHMANPET]

There's plenty of scholarship on either side touting the economic impact or lack thereof of new stadium. The fact that there is no clear consensus should give us pause, rather than just taking at face value all claims that spending half a billion of public money will result in immense wealth pouring into our economy.

[uptowncarag]

The Vikings needed a new stadium. If they were staying or leaving is not the issue. World class cities have world class facilities.