You've bought into the Vikings bluff hook, line and sinker. It certainly was a choice to build a shared facility. The Vikings would not have left Minnesota given such a deal. That was pure posturing, just like MLB's contraction saga.But you're presenting this as if it was a choice. The Vikings and Gophers were never going to play in the same stadium long term, regardless of whether the Average Joe believed they should.
Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis (cancelled)
-
- IDS Center
- Posts: 4617
- Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am
Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis
-
- IDS Center
- Posts: 4617
- Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am
Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis
And I'm saying they wouldn't lose lots of votes. Perhaps Rybak would have lost an election, but we'll never know. No one lost a seat over the Vikings or Twins deals.Uh, no argument there. My argument was that if politicians backed the private owners and helped push public subsidies I'd guess that they'd lose a lot of voters, so they don't dare side with the owners, especially now.
Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis
You're twisting up all of the facts. As I said before, a shared stadium would certainly have been possible, and the shared stadium would have been designed for the Vikings with the Gophers as a secondary tenant. The problem with your logic is that this was never a serious option.You've bought into the Vikings bluff hook, line and sinker. It certainly was a choice to build a shared facility. The Vikings would not have left Minnesota given such a deal. That was pure posturing, just like MLB's contraction saga.But you're presenting this as if it was a choice. The Vikings and Gophers were never going to play in the same stadium long term, regardless of whether the Average Joe believed they should.
It was no secret in 2006 that the Vikings were looking to replace the Metrodome, but the state, the university and its boosters decided to invest then in a separate Gophers facility. There was every opportunity to replace the Metrodome with a facility for both teams at the time, but they didn't. The entire purpose of building TCF Bank Stadium was to be separate from the NFL.
And the minute we broke ground on a 50,000-capacity football stadium on campus with metal bleachers and limited suites and club seating, we accepted that the Vikings would never be able to play there long term. If you think the Vikings could permanently decrease capacity by 15,000 and still sell market-rate seats at bare-bones TCF Bank Stadium, you're being naive. That's why any shared stadium would have had to be built to the Vikings specifications first.
Again: I don't object at all to the opinion that, in hindsight, we should have done things differently. What I object to is your presentation that distorts what actually happened when these decisions were made.
Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis
The other point that really needs to be emphasized is that, although many people agree with you that a second stadium was unnecessary, the entire purpose of TCF Bank Stadium from Day 1 was to be separate. The legislature, the university and its boosters spent $300 million to build TCF Bank Stadium so that the Gophers would have their own unique stadium built to the more modest college specifications.
So if you strongly believe we should only have one major football stadium, your issue should be with the university more than anyone else.
So if you strongly believe we should only have one major football stadium, your issue should be with the university more than anyone else.
Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis
And I hate that I'm sitting here "defending" the Vikings. The half-billion-dollar public subsidy for their stadium was a historically bad giveaway that looks worse and worse every time the Met Council votes to spend $6 million on a pedestrian bridge. Ultimately I was begrudgingly in favor of the deal because I felt a bad deal in downtown Minneapolis would be much better than a bad deal in Arden Hills, which likely would have happened if RT Rybak didn't step forward. But besides watching Vikings games on TV, I dislike pretty much everything about the actual Vikings organization.
I think everyone here wishes the funding for the stadium worked out differently — or didn't work out at all. But that doesn't mean we get to sit here and make unsubstantiated statements about how we got there.
I think everyone here wishes the funding for the stadium worked out differently — or didn't work out at all. But that doesn't mean we get to sit here and make unsubstantiated statements about how we got there.
-
- Target Field
- Posts: 593
- Joined: July 10th, 2012, 6:37 pm
Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis
I think the point is, didier, those are the Viking's prerogatives, not the public's. And you've been arguing for the benefit of the team owners, which is directly contrary to the public interest. The attempt to tie the public interest to what's good for the Vikings was an obvious bluff. This isn't an issue of hindsight, either. This has been transparent all along.You're twisting up all of the facts. As I said before, a shared stadium would certainly have been possible, and the shared stadium would have been designed for the Vikings with the Gophers as a secondary tenant. The problem with your logic is that this was never a serious option.You've bought into the Vikings bluff hook, line and sinker. It certainly was a choice to build a shared facility. The Vikings would not have left Minnesota given such a deal. That was pure posturing, just like MLB's contraction saga.But you're presenting this as if it was a choice. The Vikings and Gophers were never going to play in the same stadium long term, regardless of whether the Average Joe believed they should.
It was no secret in 2006 that the Vikings were looking to replace the Metrodome, but the state, the university and its boosters decided to invest then in a separate Gophers facility. There was every opportunity to replace the Metrodome with a facility for both teams at the time, but they didn't. The entire purpose of building TCF Bank Stadium was to be separate from the NFL.
And the minute we broke ground on a 50,000-capacity football stadium on campus with metal bleachers and limited suites and club seating, we accepted that the Vikings would never be able to play there long term. If you think the Vikings could permanently decrease capacity by 15,000 and still sell market-rate seats at bare-bones TCF Bank Stadium, you're being naive. That's why any shared stadium would have had to be built to the Vikings specifications first.
Again: I don't object at all to the opinion that, in hindsight, we should have done things differently. What I object to is your presentation that distorts what actually happened when these decisions were made.
I do appreciate that the soccer stadium debate is actually ocurring with real world constraints and being assessed on the merits. The Vikings stadium debate seemed to happen in a vaccuum, completely unbeholden to the laws of the physical, fiscal, and political universe.
In otherwords, it's sooo unfair for McGuire. But only relative to past follies.
Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis
I wouldn't characterize the post you quoted as "arguing," though. I wasn't advocating for or against a shared stadium.
My point is simply that there are legitimate parameters to the discussion. David Greene's assertion that the Vikings and Gophers could have played in a shared stadium is hypothetically true, but the Gophers went ahead and built a stadium that we all knew could not be a long-term solution for the Vikings. So for David to suggest that the Vikings turned down an opportunity to collaborate on TCF Bank Stadium is disingenuous.
TCF Bank Stadium was purposefully built for the Gophers. Nobody involved in the process had illusions of the stadium being a long-term home for the Vikings. We've already gone over the reasons why.
That doesn't mean we had to build the Vikings a stadium, too. We could have said no, let them keep the Metrodome and let things play out. But within the parameters of how things actually happened, TCF Bank Stadium was never actually an option for the Vikings.
My point is simply that there are legitimate parameters to the discussion. David Greene's assertion that the Vikings and Gophers could have played in a shared stadium is hypothetically true, but the Gophers went ahead and built a stadium that we all knew could not be a long-term solution for the Vikings. So for David to suggest that the Vikings turned down an opportunity to collaborate on TCF Bank Stadium is disingenuous.
TCF Bank Stadium was purposefully built for the Gophers. Nobody involved in the process had illusions of the stadium being a long-term home for the Vikings. We've already gone over the reasons why.
That doesn't mean we had to build the Vikings a stadium, too. We could have said no, let them keep the Metrodome and let things play out. But within the parameters of how things actually happened, TCF Bank Stadium was never actually an option for the Vikings.
Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis
The thing is, I don't actually think this situation is "unfair" for McGuire. I think the team came to the state with a compelling first proposal, and when all is said and done the "no property tax in perpetuity" idea will probably be negotiated into something else. Maybe they'll get a temporary tax break, maybe they'll get a partial tax break, or maybe they'll trade in property tax for public help in infrastructure or some other area.In otherwords, it's sooo unfair for McGuire. But only relative to past follies.
Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis
If the Vikings and Gophers can share a stadium, then the MLS team can certainly share one with the Vikings...
Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis
This is where my thoughts lie (though why I'm also in support of hardlining the folks looking to make a profit here - McGuire et al) - they probably won't get what they need. The best option is they decide to drop all of the subsidies and go it on their own (it would certainly make good PR). Otherwise, it'll probably get spun into infrastructure improvements, which I'm 100% down with, especially if it can fix some of the unfortunate roads in the area.The thing is, I don't actually think this situation is "unfair" for McGuire. I think the team came to the state with a compelling first proposal, and when all is said and done the "no property tax in perpetuity" idea will probably be negotiated into something else. Maybe they'll get a temporary tax break, maybe they'll get a partial tax break, or maybe they'll trade in property tax for public help in infrastructure or some other area.In otherwords, it's sooo unfair for McGuire. But only relative to past follies.
Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis
And the Wolves and Wild can play in the new Vikings Stadium as well. Same with the Twins. Lets put everyone under 1 roof!
-
- Capella Tower
- Posts: 2625
- Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm
Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis
Yeah, I think infrastructure improvements (beyond SWLRT, which is surely a major reason they see this site as so viable) is something I can really get behind. The city could spend $XX million on streetscapes, a few added connections, etc and get some unknown level of private investment (and resulting property taxes) less than the stadium ($150m) + whatever else comes along with it. It's still a subsidy of sorts, just far more indirect and far less of a gamble if you know a super expensive stadium will be paying property taxes as a result. Also, more tangible benefits to non-stadium users (better streets, etc).
Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis
I agree with you whole heartedly. As I said earlier in the thread. I'm all for city, and county contributing money for fixing infrastructure in that area. As is, that area is a cluster f**k of roads to no where and need attention to get better traffic management. It would be in the city and county's favor to make better use of the roads that are needed, and to ax out those short chops and sell to developers to add to or tax back. That is my wishful thinking. With that there is a real tangible purpose for that money being spent that would help out that whole area. Not just the stadium. But no from me on any subsidy for a private for profit company. I don't care if it is a sports team. When it serves the publics good, infrastructure, that is good. to line billionaires pocket, that is bad policy. IMOThis is where my thoughts lie (though why I'm also in support of hardlining the folks looking to make a profit here - McGuire et al) - they probably won't get what they need. The best option is they decide to drop all of the subsidies and go it on their own (it would certainly make good PR). Otherwise, it'll probably get spun into infrastructure improvements, which I'm 100% down with, especially if it can fix some of the unfortunate roads in the area.The thing is, I don't actually think this situation is "unfair" for McGuire. I think the team came to the state with a compelling first proposal, and when all is said and done the "no property tax in perpetuity" idea will probably be negotiated into something else. Maybe they'll get a temporary tax break, maybe they'll get a partial tax break, or maybe they'll trade in property tax for public help in infrastructure or some other area.In otherwords, it's sooo unfair for McGuire. But only relative to past follies.
-
- IDS Center
- Posts: 4371
- Joined: February 8th, 2014, 11:33 pm
- Location: Marcy-Holmes
Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis
No one posted this link yet so here. Plans around proposed stadium thrown around. And in my opinion, all horrible.
http://www.startribune.com/local/minnea ... 15531.html
http://www.startribune.com/local/minnea ... 15531.html
Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis
It's not all bad the street level retail is great, but the parking ramps are terrible.......
Meet me in Wells
Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis
Looks like a bunch of renderings and small area plans from the various city and consulting agencies stretching over many years. Doesn't appear connected to McGuire's proposal so far as we know.
Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis
This was the more interesting graphic from the article:
http://www.startribune.com/newsgraphics/300390741.html
http://www.startribune.com/newsgraphics/300390741.html
-
- Capella Tower
- Posts: 2869
- Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:19 am
Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis
I give up....you clearly don't know what I'm saying.And I'm saying they wouldn't lose lots of votes. Perhaps Rybak would have lost an election, but we'll never know. No one lost a seat over the Vikings or Twins deals.Uh, no argument there. My argument was that if politicians backed the private owners and helped push public subsidies I'd guess that they'd lose a lot of voters, so they don't dare side with the owners, especially now.
-
- Capella Tower
- Posts: 2869
- Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:19 am
Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis
I don't see what's so horrible. Some of the designs look extremely ambitious (from an urbanist perspective).No one posted this link yet so here. Plans around proposed stadium thrown around. And in my opinion, all horrible.
http://www.startribune.com/local/minnea ... 15531.html
-
- IDS Center
- Posts: 4371
- Joined: February 8th, 2014, 11:33 pm
- Location: Marcy-Holmes
Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis
And some look like they're outdated already.I don't see what's so horrible. Some of the designs look extremely ambitious (from an urbanist perspective).No one posted this link yet so here. Plans around proposed stadium thrown around. And in my opinion, all horrible.
http://www.startribune.com/local/minnea ... 15531.html
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests