PDA

View Full Version : My dream for a new stadium



Boyum
11-16-2007, 06:19 AM
I've had this dream of an ideal stadium for the Vikings.
A unique, one of a kind facility that will hold the interest of long time fans and be a wonder and source of pride for young and old alike.

First of all the stadium needs to be an outdoor, open air facility.
The Vikings mystique was born in the outdoor elements of Metropolitan Sports Stadium in the glorious 60's and 70's.
A poster mentioned one of the biggest mistakes the franchise made was letting Tony Dungy go.
That is a great point but IMO moving from an outdoor team into the sterile, controlled environment of the Metrodome was the key mistake that is still haunting us.


This outdoor stadium will be shaped like a huge, Viking Longship complete with the shields on the side and the tall serpent's neck and head at the end where the scoreboard will be mounted.
The facility should be built on a large piece of land with it's own parking, tailgating grounds and with a Paul Bunyan sized Viking Warrior standing tall next to the entrance.


Just envision the lead in to Monday Night Football in Minnesota where it's cold, snowing around that Viking Warrior and some pansy southern team coming up here to try and beat the Vikings.

Just like the good old days.


This is my dream.

Purple Floyd
11-16-2007, 08:44 AM
I like it but you won't find many around this site who will. It seems everybody wants heated leather seats and TiVo for when they have to take a leak.

Marrdro
11-16-2007, 09:07 AM
I like the concept, however, as with Uffda I believe the fans wouldn't.

I never got to see a game at the Met, but I can remember on more than one occasion, people that I knew beeeyatching about how fricken cold it was to watch a game.

Wonder what would happen if our fans had to re-endure those types of elements.

I for one believe the noise the 12th man can make in the dome is much more of a hinderance to a visiting team than the elements.
Remember, our guys have to play in them as well.

tb04512
11-16-2007, 09:11 AM
i like the idea idstill go to the games but i know many who wouldnt go rigt about now through the rest of the year

tgorsegner
11-16-2007, 09:36 AM
Football is supposed to be cold.

As for our guys having to play in it, they typically have at least one or two cold games in chicago and green bay.

God i hate the Metrodome. What a mistake of a stadium.

GO VIKES!!!

purplepride_1961
11-16-2007, 09:45 AM
I live in Missouri and if they build it I will come

NodakPaul
11-16-2007, 10:38 AM
It is a nice dream Boyum, and I would go if it were built.
But I don't think it is the best solution for the Vikings.
The biggest problem is because it is an open air stadium.
And not because I want heated leather seats and TiVo for when they have to take a leak. ;)
Here are my reasons:

1) An outdoor stadium would only be usable for event other than football for a handful of months out of the year.
We are currently asking for public money to finance more than 50% of the overall construction costs.
There is no way that the state or city would be able to recoup their expenses if the stadium was open air.
Right now the Metrodome holds events 330+ days out of the year.
We need a facility that can do the same, or there simply won't be any public money to help pay for it.

2) Fan attendance would drop significantly.
The Vikings, even when they were the Purple People Eaters, had trouble selling out the old Met in the winter.
Why?
Well, part of it was because the Met was a piece of pooh.
If you had ever been there, you know that's true.
The only thing it had going for it was the outdoors, but that is why it didn't sell ou tin the winter.
It was a miserable fan experience.
And the Met only seated 45,000 people.
That was another of the very big reasons that we moved to an indoor stadium in 1982.
Now, even though we are in one of the worst couple of years in Vikings History, we are still selling 60,000+ seats at home games.
If we were outdoors again, this wouldn't be the case.

3) Without a roof, we will not get a super bowl in Minnesota again.
The amount of money brought in by both businesses and consumers is astronomical.


Honestly, I like the idea of open air in the fall months, but not in the winter.
That is why I am in favor or a retractable roof.

C Mac D
11-16-2007, 10:53 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


It is a nice dream Boyum, and I would go if it were built.
But I don't think it is the best solution for the Vikings.
The biggest problem is because it is an open air stadium.
And not because I want heated leather seats and TiVo for when they have to take a leak. ;)
Here are my reasons:

1) An outdoor stadium would only be usable for event other than football for a handful of months out of the year.
We are currently asking for public money to finance more than 50% of the overall construction costs.
There is no way that the state or city would be able to recoup their expenses if the stadium was open air.
Right now the Metrodome holds events 330+ days out of the year.
We need a facility that can do the same, or there simply won't be any public money to help pay for it.

2) Fan attendance would drop significantly.
The Vikings, even when they were the Purple People Eaters, had trouble selling out the old Met in the winter.
Why?
Well, part of it was because the Met was a piece of pooh.
If you had ever been there, you know that's true.
The only thing it had going for it was the outdoors, but that is why it didn't sell ou tin the winter.
It was a miserable fan experience.
And the Met only seated 45,000 people.
That was another of the very big reasons that we moved to an indoor stadium in 1982.
Now, even though we are in one of the worst couple of years in Vikings History, we are still selling 60,000+ seats at home games.
If we were outdoors again, this wouldn't be the case.

3) Without a roof, we will not get a super bowl in Minnesota again.
The amount of money brought in by both businesses and consumers is astronomical.


Honestly, I like the idea of open air in the fall months, but not in the winter.
That is why I am in favor or a retractable roof.



Took the words from my mouth.

I'm also not so keen on the idea of a stadium shaped like a Viking Long Ship.

marstc09
11-16-2007, 11:02 AM
"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


It is a nice dream Boyum, and I would go if it were built.
But I don't think it is the best solution for the Vikings.
The biggest problem is because it is an open air stadium.
And not because I want heated leather seats and TiVo for when they have to take a leak. ;)
Here are my reasons:

1) An outdoor stadium would only be usable for event other than football for a handful of months out of the year.
We are currently asking for public money to finance more than 50% of the overall construction costs.
There is no way that the state or city would be able to recoup their expenses if the stadium was open air.
Right now the Metrodome holds events 330+ days out of the year.
We need a facility that can do the same, or there simply won't be any public money to help pay for it.

2) Fan attendance would drop significantly.
The Vikings, even when they were the Purple People Eaters, had trouble selling out the old Met in the winter.
Why?
Well, part of it was because the Met was a piece of pooh.
If you had ever been there, you know that's true.
The only thing it had going for it was the outdoors, but that is why it didn't sell ou tin the winter.
It was a miserable fan experience.
And the Met only seated 45,000 people.
That was another of the very big reasons that we moved to an indoor stadium in 1982.
Now, even though we are in one of the worst couple of years in Vikings History, we are still selling 60,000+ seats at home games.
If we were outdoors again, this wouldn't be the case.

3) Without a roof, we will not get a super bowl in Minnesota again.
The amount of money brought in by both businesses and consumers is astronomical.


Honestly, I like the idea of open air in the fall months, but not in the winter.
That is why I am in favor or a retractable roof.



Took the words from my mouth.

I'm also not so keen on the idea of a stadium shaped like a Viking Long Ship.


Why not? Then we can compete with the Bears and their spaceship.

I am in favor of a retractable roof.

Zeus
11-16-2007, 11:04 AM
"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


It is a nice dream Boyum, and I would go if it were built.
But I don't think it is the best solution for the Vikings.
The biggest problem is because it is an open air stadium.
And not because I want heated leather seats and TiVo for when they have to take a leak. ;)
Here are my reasons:

1) An outdoor stadium would only be usable for event other than football for a handful of months out of the year.
We are currently asking for public money to finance more than 50% of the overall construction costs.
There is no way that the state or city would be able to recoup their expenses if the stadium was open air.
Right now the Metrodome holds events 330+ days out of the year.
We need a facility that can do the same, or there simply won't be any public money to help pay for it.

2) Fan attendance would drop significantly.
The Vikings, even when they were the Purple People Eaters, had trouble selling out the old Met in the winter.
Why?
Well, part of it was because the Met was a piece of pooh.
If you had ever been there, you know that's true.
The only thing it had going for it was the outdoors, but that is why it didn't sell ou tin the winter.
It was a miserable fan experience.
And the Met only seated 45,000 people.
That was another of the very big reasons that we moved to an indoor stadium in 1982.
Now, even though we are in one of the worst couple of years in Vikings History, we are still selling 60,000+ seats at home games.
If we were outdoors again, this wouldn't be the case.

3) Without a roof, we will not get a super bowl in Minnesota again.
The amount of money brought in by both businesses and consumers is astronomical.


Honestly, I like the idea of open air in the fall months, but not in the winter.
That is why I am in favor or a retractable roof.



Took the words from my mouth.

I'm also not so keen on the idea of a stadium shaped like a Viking Long Ship.


Why not? Then we can compete with the Bears and their spaceship.

I am in favor of a retractable roof.


I'm not.
As we've seen time and time again, roofs are closed for reasons OTHER than fan comfort or home-team advantage.
Add in the addition $300+million to the cost for a retractable one, and I just don't see the point.

=Z=

El Vikingo
11-16-2007, 11:11 AM
This is my dream for our new
Stadium .

http://www.andaluciaimagen.com/Plaza-de-Toros-de-la-Malagueta-Malaga-Andalucia-Espana_3406.jpg

NodakPaul
11-16-2007, 11:15 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


It is a nice dream Boyum, and I would go if it were built.
But I don't think it is the best solution for the Vikings.
The biggest problem is because it is an open air stadium.
And not because I want heated leather seats and TiVo for when they have to take a leak. ;)
Here are my reasons:

1) An outdoor stadium would only be usable for event other than football for a handful of months out of the year.
We are currently asking for public money to finance more than 50% of the overall construction costs.
There is no way that the state or city would be able to recoup their expenses if the stadium was open air.
Right now the Metrodome holds events 330+ days out of the year.
We need a facility that can do the same, or there simply won't be any public money to help pay for it.

2) Fan attendance would drop significantly.
The Vikings, even when they were the Purple People Eaters, had trouble selling out the old Met in the winter.
Why?
Well, part of it was because the Met was a piece of pooh.
If you had ever been there, you know that's true.
The only thing it had going for it was the outdoors, but that is why it didn't sell ou tin the winter.
It was a miserable fan experience.
And the Met only seated 45,000 people.
That was another of the very big reasons that we moved to an indoor stadium in 1982.
Now, even though we are in one of the worst couple of years in Vikings History, we are still selling 60,000+ seats at home games.
If we were outdoors again, this wouldn't be the case.

3) Without a roof, we will not get a super bowl in Minnesota again.
The amount of money brought in by both businesses and consumers is astronomical.


Honestly, I like the idea of open air in the fall months, but not in the winter.
That is why I am in favor or a retractable roof.



Took the words from my mouth.

I'm also not so keen on the idea of a stadium shaped like a Viking Long Ship.


Why not? Then we can compete with the Bears and their spaceship.

I am in favor of a retractable roof.


I'm not.
As we've seen time and time again, roofs are closed for reasons OTHER than fan comfort or home-team advantage.
Add in the addition $300+million to the cost for a retractable one, and I just don't see the point.

=Z=


I think it would be for fan experience.
But I understand your point.
It would be more responsible to just make a solid roof.
The last thing I would want to see is a fully open air stadium.








But if it was I would still go. :D

NodakPaul
11-16-2007, 11:15 AM
"El" wrote:


This is my dream for our new
Stadium .

http://www.andaluciaimagen.com/Plaza-de-Toros-de-la-Malagueta-Malaga-Andalucia-Espana_3406.jpg







LOL.
Boooooo!
Waaaay to far south for the Vikings!

C Mac D
11-16-2007, 11:18 AM
"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:


Took the words from my mouth.

I'm also not so keen on the idea of a stadium shaped like a Viking Long Ship.


Why not? Then we can compete with the Bears and their spaceship.

I am in favor of a retractable roof.


I guess it just sorta sounds like a cheesy idea. If it could be done right, and somehow they make it look great, I guess it could be cool.

I like the retractable roof too... but doubt we will have that sort of funding.

Zeus
11-16-2007, 11:46 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


I'm not.
As we've seen time and time again, roofs are closed for reasons OTHER than fan comfort or home-team advantage.
Add in the addition $300+million to the cost for a retractable one, and I just don't see the point.


I think it would be for fan experience.
But I understand your point.
It would be more responsible to just make a solid roof.
The last thing I would want to see is a fully open air stadium.

But if it was I would still go. :D


The retractable roof would be added (as you point out) to expand the usefulness of the stadium beyond the few weekends in the fall when football is being played.


However, it seems that most seem to think that if there IS a retractable roof, that it will be OPEN in December when the Packers come to town, so that the great weather advantage will be in play.
I, however, do not BELIEVE that the roof would be open in that case.
I actually believe the NFL will FORCE the Vikings to close the roof on bad-weather days.

I, like you, want a roof.
I like feeling comfortable when watching the game.

=Z=

COJOMAY
11-16-2007, 12:13 PM
"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:


Took the words from my mouth.

I'm also not so keen on the idea of a stadium shaped like a Viking Long Ship.


Why not? Then we can compete with the Bears and their spaceship.

I am in favor of a retractable roof.


I guess it just sorta sounds like a cheesy idea. If it could be done right, and somehow they make it look great, I guess it could be cool.

I like the retractable roof too... but doubt we will have that sort of funding.

I doubt will have the funding to build any kind of stadium. I'm betting that either the dome will be upgraded and in the meantiime the Vikes will play at the TCF stadium at the U of M wile it's being renovated.

Ranger
11-16-2007, 12:23 PM
The Packers don't seem to have issues selling out in the wintertime of Wisconsin...why should we in Minnesota?

COJOMAY
11-16-2007, 12:35 PM
"Ranger" wrote:


The Packers don't seem to have issues selling out in the wintertime of Wisconsin...why should we in Minnesota?

The Packers situation is totally different from the Vikings. That stadium does not have public funding and is only used for football. The Vikes stadium is publically funded and the state wants more "bang for the buck." In other words they want it generating revenue for more than football. Therefore it has to be a "four seasons" facility.

NodakPaul
11-16-2007, 12:39 PM
"Ranger" wrote:


The Packers don't seem to have issues selling out in the wintertime of Wisconsin...why should we in Minnesota?


Different fan climate.
The Packers also don't have issues selling out when their team sucks... why do we in Minnesota?

The fact that we didn't sell out the old Met in the winter when the Vikings were a super bowl caliber team is exactly that - a fact.
Unless the new generation of Vikings fans have placed a radically different value on the experience of going to the game (which the current situation of blackouts leads me to believe they don't) we would see a lot of empty seats again in December in an outdoor stadium.

NodakPaul
11-16-2007, 12:45 PM
"COJOMAY" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:


Took the words from my mouth.

I'm also not so keen on the idea of a stadium shaped like a Viking Long Ship.


Why not? Then we can compete with the Bears and their spaceship.

I am in favor of a retractable roof.


I guess it just sorta sounds like a cheesy idea. If it could be done right, and somehow they make it look great, I guess it could be cool.

I like the retractable roof too... but doubt we will have that sort of funding.

I doubt will have the funding to build any kind of stadium. I'm betting that either the dome will be upgraded and in the meantiime the Vikes will play at the TCF stadium at the U of M wile it's being renovated.


I thought that option has been tried and rejected.
Less bang for the buck (to use your other statement).
The renovations proposed to even get them up to current NFL standards would cost $300+, and still wouldn't do anything to affect the issue of ticket sales or fan experience.
Plus future renovations, which would certainly be needed over time, would be equally expensive.
Two or three "renovations" and we could have already paid for a new stadium that does not need renovations in the same time frame as the dome.

It is kind of like a new car versus keeping your old one.
Yes, you CAN keep the old one running right now.
But eventually you will have invested more money into the upkeep and maintenance of the old car than you would have on a newer model, which doesn't require the same amount of maintenance (until it gets older).
The trick is finding the right time when purchasing the new car is cheaper in the long run than keeping the old one.

Anytime you are talking about spending 30% of the cost on a new car, er stadium, on renovations on the old, you have reached that point in time when it is better to buy new.

C Mac D
11-16-2007, 01:05 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


I thought that option has been tried and rejected.
Less bang for the buck (to use your other statement).
The renovations proposed to even get them up to current NFL standards would cost $300+, and still wouldn't do anything to affect the issue of ticket sales or fan experience.
Plus future renovations, which would certainly be needed over time, would be equally expensive.
Two or three "renovations" and we could have already paid for a new stadium that does not need renovations in the same time frame as the dome.

It is kind of like a new car versus keeping your old one.
Yes, you CAN keep the old one running right now.
But eventually you will have invested more money into the upkeep and maintenance of the old car than you would have on a newer model, which doesn't require the same amount of maintenance (until it gets older).
The trick is finding the right time when purchasing the new car is cheaper in the long run than keeping the old one.

Anytime you are talking about spending 30% of the cost on a new car, er stadium, on renovations on the old, you have reached that point in time when it is better to buy new.


Great Analogy.

RK.
11-16-2007, 01:18 PM
http://www.crala.org/internet-site/Projects/Hoover/images/coliseum.jpg

This is still available and its open air too.
;D

Zeus
11-16-2007, 01:30 PM
"RK." wrote:


http://www.crala.org/internet-site/Projects/Hoover/images/coliseum.jpg

This is still available and its open air too.
;D


It's also completely outdated for the NFL in 2007.

=Z=

NodakPaul
11-16-2007, 01:41 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"RK." wrote:


http://www.crala.org/internet-site/Projects/Hoover/images/coliseum.jpg

This is still available and its open air too.
;D


It's also completely outdated for the NFL in 2007.

=Z=




Lol.
Yeah, sorry but we already have an out of date stadium with not enough suites, club seating, concessions and toilets.
Why would we want to move into another?

Boyum
11-16-2007, 01:44 PM
(NoDakPaul wrote)

It is a nice dream Boyum, and I would go if it were built.
But I don't think it is the best solution for the Vikings.
The biggest problem is because it is an open air stadium.
And not because I want heated leather seats and TiVo for when they have to take a leak.

Here are my reasons:

1) An outdoor stadium would only be usable for event other than football for a handful of months out of the year.
We are currently asking for public money to finance more than 50% of the overall construction costs.
There is no way that the state or city would be able to recoup their expenses if the stadium was open air.
Right now the Metrodome holds events 330+ days out of the year.
We need a facility that can do the same, or there simply won't be any public money to help pay for it.

Valid
point.
The Metrodome, although inadequate from the day it opened has been an efficient, useful facility and has been paid off for many years which is rare.
I believe they make a pretty good profit from the Dome which is unheard of for major stadiums.

2) Fan attendance would drop significantly.
The Vikings, even when they were the Purple People Eaters, had trouble selling out the old Met in the winter.
Why?
Well, part of it was because the Met was a piece of pooh.
If you had ever been there, you know that's true.
The only thing it had going for it was the outdoors, but that is why it didn't sell ou tin the winter.
It was a miserable fan experience.
And the Met only seated 45,000 people.
That was another of the very big reasons that we moved to an indoor stadium in 1982.
Now, even though we are in one of the worst couple of years in Vikings History, we are still selling 60,000+ seats at home games.
If we were outdoors again, this wouldn't be the case.

I hate to believe that is the case but you are probably right.
People are not the same as they were 30 years ago.
It was cool back in the 70’s to wear snowmobile suits in public LOL.
I was a very young but I used to be one of the rubes you saw on the NFL today tailgating out at the old Met in -10 weather and snowing.
I think the entire country was fascinated with just how ridiculous we were.
It was fun times though.


And yes, the Met was a piece of pooh.
Barely a good baseball stadium to be honest.

3) Without a roof, we will not get a super bowl in Minnesota again.
The amount of money brought in by both businesses and consumers is astronomical.


I for one am not enamored with the benefits of hosting a Superbowl, I would much rather the Vikings BE IN a Superbowl whether it be Pasadena, Miami or Minneapolis.
I believe the road back to the Superbowl starts with the Vikings going back outdoors, like the Packers, Bills, Eagles, Patriots, Giants, Redskins, Jets,
and other cold weather teams.

Honestly, I like the idea of open air in the fall months, but not in the winter.
That is why I am in favor or a retractable roof.

I believe that new technology can make the fan experience tolerable on the worst weather days in an outdoor facility.
Just situating the stadium properly should keep the coldest winds off the fans and with heated seats and floors you could be pretty darn comfortable given the proper clothing.
I think the right outdoor stadium would be just what this franchise needs.

NodakPaul
11-16-2007, 02:05 PM
"Boyum" wrote:


I believe that new technology can make the fan experience tolerable on the worst weather days in an outdoor facility.
Just situating the stadium properly should keep the coldest winds off the fans and with heated seats and floors you could be pretty darn comfortable given the proper clothing.
I think the right outdoor stadium would be just what this franchise needs.


That is actually probably the most intelligent way to argue for an outdoor stadium that I have heard here in a long time.
Usually when I offer my reasons for not wanting an outdoor stadium I am met with comments about my toughness and/or told to leave my kids at home for football games.

If the stadium is designed properly it could be a good fan experience, you are right.
Then it just comes down to the public funding issue.
I think a properly designed open air stadium would still cost a pretty good chuck of change, and I just don't see it going through the legislature without a roof.
But if it can be done, then I am all for it. ;)

Realistically, I think it will end up being an enclosed stadium.
We'll see though.

tgorsegner
11-16-2007, 02:10 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Boyum" wrote:


I believe that new technology can make the fan experience tolerable on the worst weather days in an outdoor facility.
Just situating the stadium properly should keep the coldest winds off the fans and with heated seats and floors you could be pretty darn comfortable given the proper clothing.
I think the right outdoor stadium would be just what this franchise needs.


That is actually probably the most intelligent way to argue for an outdoor stadium that I have heard here in a long time.
Usually when I offer my reasons for not wanting an outdoor stadium I am met with comments about my toughness and/or told to leave my kids at home for football games.

If the stadium is designed properly it could be a good fan experience, you are right.
Then it just comes down to the public funding issue.
I think a properly designed open air stadium would still cost a pretty good chuck of change, and I just don't see it going through the legislature without a roof.
But if it can be done, then I am all for it. ;)

Realistically, I think it will end up being an enclosed stadium.
We'll see though.



Is there a reason an open air stadium could not be used for non-football purposes for approx 3 seasons of the year?

Boyum
11-16-2007, 02:17 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Boyum" wrote:


I believe that new technology can make the fan experience tolerable on the worst weather days in an outdoor facility.
Just situating the stadium properly should keep the coldest winds off the fans and with heated seats and floors you could be pretty darn comfortable given the proper clothing.
I think the right outdoor stadium would be just what this franchise needs.


That is actually probably the most intelligent way to argue for an outdoor stadium that I have heard here in a long time.
Usually when I offer my reasons for not wanting an outdoor stadium I am met with comments about my toughness and/or told to leave my kids at home for football games.

If the stadium is designed properly it could be a good fan experience, you are right.
Then it just comes down to the public funding issue.
I think a properly designed open air stadium would still cost a pretty good chuck of change, and I just don't see it going through the legislature without a roof.
But if it can be done, then I am all for it. ;)

Realistically, I think it will end up being an enclosed stadium.
We'll see though.


As I said, this is just a dream of mine and I realize spending 800M on a stadium that can be used for as few as 8 home games and a handful of other events is nothing but a dream.
So that leaves us with a 1billion+ retractable roof option.
The best of both worlds but if the roof is going to cost 300M I would much rather see that money be spent on building the best fixed roof stadium in the league with the best parking and infrastructure to support not only the stadium but what I hope is a thriving business community around the stadium.


To summarize, if we cannot justify an outdoor stadium then let's build the best dome possible.
Whatever they play in we have to keep the Vikings in Minnesota.

vikesfargo
11-16-2007, 02:28 PM
The goal is a tolerable situation for fans while retaining as much of a natural condition for game play. The weather in Chicago and Green Bay can be bad, but not so bad as to keep the fans away. It can get cold in Buffalo, New England, New Jersey, Pittsburgh, and other cities, but only very rarely does it get to extremes. The regularly extreme cold and snowy weather in Detroit would keep fans away, so they've elected to go with a roof on their new stadium.

Twin Cities weather in November, December, and January is known to often take a nasty turn. We all know there is a difference between being cold and feeling like your face is about to get torn off.

A couple of other NFL stadiums are built in cities with not just bad weather, but extreme weather. They are Reliant Stadium in Hoston (heat, humidity, bad air), and the Cardinals's stadium (heat). Both stadiums have retractable roofs. The successor to the Metrodome should, too.

Advantages of retractability include: a natural grass surface, open air stadium in good and tolerable weather, and a roofed stadium in extreme weather. Retractability also gives the stadium year-round uses. That means the investment pays for itself over time. It means the stadium can be used for soccer or World Cup matches. Finally, it means we will host another Super Bowl, which helps the economics tremendously.

There is no need to raise taxes. Just sell bonds and pay for them with the stadium lease to the Vikings and other events. Let the Wilfs own part of the stadium if they want to commit their own money. Get the Wilfs to sign a long-term lease. Problem solved.

Zeus
11-16-2007, 02:32 PM
"tgorsegner" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Boyum" wrote:


I believe that new technology can make the fan experience tolerable on the worst weather days in an outdoor facility.
Just situating the stadium properly should keep the coldest winds off the fans and with heated seats and floors you could be pretty darn comfortable given the proper clothing.
I think the right outdoor stadium would be just what this franchise needs.


That is actually probably the most intelligent way to argue for an outdoor stadium that I have heard here in a long time.
Usually when I offer my reasons for not wanting an outdoor stadium I am met with comments about my toughness and/or told to leave my kids at home for football games.

If the stadium is designed properly it could be a good fan experience, you are right.
Then it just comes down to the public funding issue.
I think a properly designed open air stadium would still cost a pretty good chuck of change, and I just don't see it going through the legislature without a roof.
But if it can be done, then I am all for it. ;)

Realistically, I think it will end up being an enclosed stadium.
We'll see though.



Is there a reason an open air stadium could not be used for non-football purposes for approx 3 seasons of the year?


Yes.

The Dome currently holds things like tradeshows, home improvement shows, etc. that are not at all feasible in an open-air venue.
In addition, there are many events held at the Dome (concerts and such) that also cannot be held out-of-doors during winter.

=Z=

DarrinNelsonguy
11-16-2007, 02:35 PM
If money is no object I would like to have the best retractable roof stadium that money could buy. I really liked the drawing they had released earlier this year. A dome is more likely because it would cost less.

marstc09
11-16-2007, 02:38 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


I'm not.
As we've seen time and time again, roofs are closed for reasons OTHER than fan comfort or home-team advantage.
Add in the addition $300+million to the cost for a retractable one, and I just don't see the point.


I think it would be for fan experience.
But I understand your point.
It would be more responsible to just make a solid roof.
The last thing I would want to see is a fully open air stadium.

But if it was I would still go. :D


The retractable roof would be added (as you point out) to expand the usefulness of the stadium beyond the few weekends in the fall when football is being played.


However, it seems that most seem to think that if there IS a retractable roof, that it will be OPEN in December when the Packers come to town, so that the great weather advantage will be in play.
I, however, do not BELIEVE that the roof would be open in that case.
I actually believe the NFL will FORCE the Vikings to close the roof on bad-weather days.

I, like you, want a roof.
I like feeling comfortable when watching the game.

=Z=


The retractable roof would be nice for other events but I think the Target Center is fine for those type of events. I want at least a roof. I love the fact that I can enjoy the game wihtout wearing 10 layers of clothing.

jessejames09
11-16-2007, 02:54 PM
Wide open!! Lol you guys can suck it up.

I can't believe they won't build a new stadium, aren't people getting pissed off in MN?

tgorsegner
11-16-2007, 07:41 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"tgorsegner" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Boyum" wrote:


I believe that new technology can make the fan experience tolerable on the worst weather days in an outdoor facility.
Just situating the stadium properly should keep the coldest winds off the fans and with heated seats and floors you could be pretty darn comfortable given the proper clothing.
I think the right outdoor stadium would be just what this franchise needs.


That is actually probably the most intelligent way to argue for an outdoor stadium that I have heard here in a long time.
Usually when I offer my reasons for not wanting an outdoor stadium I am met with comments about my toughness and/or told to leave my kids at home for football games.

If the stadium is designed properly it could be a good fan experience, you are right.
Then it just comes down to the public funding issue.
I think a properly designed open air stadium would still cost a pretty good chuck of change, and I just don't see it going through the legislature without a roof.
But if it can be done, then I am all for it. ;)

Realistically, I think it will end up being an enclosed stadium.
We'll see though.



Is there a reason an open air stadium could not be used for non-football purposes for approx 3 seasons of the year?


Yes.

The Dome currently holds things like tradeshows, home improvement shows, etc. that are not at all feasible in an open-air venue.
In addition, there are many events held at the Dome (concerts and such) that also cannot be held out-of-doors during winter.

=Z=



ok, makes sense. I did not think of the trade-type shows etc. I was referencing that concerts, etc. Could be held there in sping, summer and fall. thanks for the explanation

ultravikingfan
11-16-2007, 07:55 PM
Open roof...this is a football stadium for playing football.
If people cannot stand the cold then others will come in their place.

Who gives a shit for trade shows and all that other nonsense.
If it not going to be open, then save the money and put a roof over it.
If they have a retractable roof and it rains a little bit and some sissy fan gets a rain drop on them they are going to complain and then the roof will always be closed.

I care about the Vikings; not Star Trek convention nerds.

Purple Floyd
11-16-2007, 08:13 PM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:


Open roof...this is a football stadium for playing football.
If people cannot stand the cold then others will come in their place.

Who gives a shit for trade shows and all that other nonsense.
If it not going to be open, then save the money and put a roof over it.
If they have a retractable roof and it rains a little bit and some sissy fan gets a rain drop on them they are going to complain and then the roof will always be closed.

I care about the Vikings; not Star Trek convention nerds.


Amen

NodakPaul
11-17-2007, 08:06 AM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"ultravikingfan" wrote:


Open roof...this is a football stadium for playing football.
If people cannot stand the cold then others will come in their place.

Who gives a pooh for trade shows and all that other nonsense.
If it not going to be open, then save the money and put a roof over it.
If they have a retractable roof and it rains a little bit and some sissy fan gets a rain drop on them they are going to complain and then the roof will always be closed.

I care about the Vikings; not Star Trek convention nerds.


Amen


Again though, if you expect public money to help pay for it, then you need to accommodate more public events than just Vikings football.
It isn't a question of some sissy fan who doesn't want to feel a raindrop.
It is a question of being able to use the stadium 300+ days a year like the dome is.
Even if you take away Twins games, Vikings games, and Gopher games, that still leave 200+ events held in the dome each year that help pay for it.

singersp
11-17-2007, 08:40 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"ultravikingfan" wrote:


Open roof...this is a football stadium for playing football.
If people cannot stand the cold then others will come in their place.

Who gives a pooh for trade shows and all that other nonsense.
If it not going to be open, then save the money and put a roof over it.
If they have a retractable roof and it rains a little bit and some sissy fan gets a rain drop on them they are going to complain and then the roof will always be closed.

I care about the Vikings; not Star Trek convention nerds.


Amen


Again though, if you expect public money to help pay for it, then you need to accommodate more public events than just Vikings football.
It isn't a question of some sissy fan who doesn't want to feel a raindrop.
It is a question of being able to use the stadium 300+ days a year like the dome is.
Even if you take away Twins games, Vikings games, and Gopher games, that still leave 200+ events held in the dome each year that help pay for it.


And there won't be any money brought in to help pay for the new stadium by either the Twins or the Gophers, since each will have their own new stadium.

There are several stadiums in the USA that neither have to worry about severe cold or even rain, yet they have or will have "roofed" stadiums.

Perhaps football was meant to be played outdoors in inclimate weather, but does that mean it has to be watched in it?

Even a stadium that has a roof, but open above only the playing field wpould be nice.

jessejames09
11-17-2007, 10:11 AM
Okay so my just of the situation is. You guys won't pay taxes to get a new stadium, but you feel when others step up to pay for it, they should pay more for a roof, because the fans want one.

ultravikingfan
11-17-2007, 11:51 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"ultravikingfan" wrote:


Open roof...this is a football stadium for playing football.
If people cannot stand the cold then others will come in their place.

Who gives a pooh for trade shows and all that other nonsense.
If it not going to be open, then save the money and put a roof over it.
If they have a retractable roof and it rains a little bit and some sissy fan gets a rain drop on them they are going to complain and then the roof will always be closed.

I care about the Vikings; not Star Trek convention nerds.


Amen


Again though, if you expect public money to help pay for it, then you need to accommodate more public events than just Vikings football.
It isn't a question of some sissy fan who doesn't want to feel a raindrop.
It is a question of being able to use the stadium 300+ days a year like the dome is.
Even if you take away Twins games, Vikings games, and Gopher games, that still leave 200+ events held in the dome each year that help pay for it.


The public should know that they are financing a football stadium; not a mult-purpose stadium.
It can be a football stadium that can host concerts and other events still, but it is there for football.
What a huge advantage it would be to have it snowing and cold playing other teams.
You know darn well that once Nov. comes that roof will be closed.

ultravikingfan
11-17-2007, 11:52 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"ultravikingfan" wrote:


Open roof...this is a football stadium for playing football.
If people cannot stand the cold then others will come in their place.

Who gives a pooh for trade shows and all that other nonsense.
If it not going to be open, then save the money and put a roof over it.
If they have a retractable roof and it rains a little bit and some sissy fan gets a rain drop on them they are going to complain and then the roof will always be closed.

I care about the Vikings; not Star Trek convention nerds.


Amen


Again though, if you expect public money to help pay for it, then you need to accommodate more public events than just Vikings football.
It isn't a question of some sissy fan who doesn't want to feel a raindrop.
It is a question of being able to use the stadium 300+ days a year like the dome is.
Even if you take away Twins games, Vikings games, and Gopher games, that still leave 200+ events held in the dome each year that help pay for it.


And there won't be any money brought in to help pay for the new stadium by either the Twins or the Gophers, since each will have their own new stadium.

There are several stadiums in the USA that neither have to worry about severe cold or even rain, yet they have or will have "roofed" stadiums.

Perhaps football was meant to be played outdoors in inclimate weather, but does that mean it has to be watched in it?

Even a stadium that has a roof, but open above only the playing field wpould be nice.


Screw that hole in the roof, thats what the Cowboys lame-ass stadium is like.

Purple Floyd
11-17-2007, 03:18 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"ultravikingfan" wrote:


Open roof...this is a football stadium for playing football.
If people cannot stand the cold then others will come in their place.

Who gives a pooh for trade shows and all that other nonsense.
If it not going to be open, then save the money and put a roof over it.
If they have a retractable roof and it rains a little bit and some sissy fan gets a rain drop on them they are going to complain and then the roof will always be closed.

I care about the Vikings; not Star Trek convention nerds.


Amen


Again though, if you expect public money to help pay for it, then you need to accommodate more public events than just Vikings football.
It isn't a question of some sissy fan who doesn't want to feel a raindrop.
It is a question of being able to use the stadium 300+ days a year like the dome is.
Even if you take away Twins games, Vikings games, and Gopher games, that still leave 200+ events held in the dome each year that help pay for it.



I don't.

I feel that the team should build it themselves, build it the way they want it to look, and charge what they need to charge to make a profit. I do not nor have I ever been in favor of government funding. When the government gets involved,there are always extra things that they require that end up increasing the cost of the project that could have been left out if they were not part of the picture.


And before you bring up "The cost is too high to build themselves", if Red had built it entirely himself when the cost was projected at 350-400 million, or even Wilf right away when when the costs were projected in the 500-600 million range it still would have ultimately cost them less than the 1 billion plus it is going to cost before the last light bulb is screwed in.

RK.
11-17-2007, 03:24 PM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:


The public should know that they are financing a football stadium; not a mult-purpose stadium.
It can be a football stadium that can host concerts and other events still, but it is there for football.
What a huge advantage it would be to have it snowing and cold playing other teams.
You know darn well that once Nov. comes that roof will be closed.

Why is it you guys think this is some huge advantage to us... It isn't.
If its a disadvantage to one team it is the same disadvantage to another.
Denver gets beat in the snow by visiting teams from southern climates.
Chicago gets beat in the snow by teams from domed stadiums.
It is true for all teams that have stadiums that play in fucked up weather.
Also the Super Bowl is never played in those conditions.
I have said this before and I will say it again.
Pay attention

Bud Grant used to fly the Vikings out of MN in the winter to practice for playoff games because the fucking field was frozen and it was too cold to practice during playoff times.
If you have an indoor practice facility what makes you think playing outside for the game is some kind of advantage?
Its only an advantage if you have a crappy team that is hoping the weather will beat a better team because you can't.
However that is not going to help you win a Super Bowl.
Not ever.
Its just a bunch of macho bullshit.
When the metro-dome was built one of the reasons given was that we were at a disadvantage in January during the playoff time because the weather hindered our ability to practice for playoff games and we were not as prepared as we could be.
A great runner slipping and sliding and not able to cut is not a great runner.
Same goes for pass receivers.
Same goes for Quarterbacks.
Open air stadiums are great where its warm in the winter and they can be used.
Face it the winters suck in MN and playing outdoors in it is not an advantage to a good team.

jessejames09
11-17-2007, 04:03 PM
This is football if you are afraid of a little discomfort don't go.

RK.
11-17-2007, 04:08 PM
Here is a good article on the subject of playing in weather.
I liked this particular quote from a coach that I think most on this forum admire.


But Indianapolis coach Tony Dungy notes that the Jacksonville Jaguars pulled off a victory Dec. 18 in Green Bay, where the temperature at kickoff was 12 degrees (minus 3 counting the wind chill).

"That was supposed to be, 'You can't win with a Florida team in below-zero weather,' and they went up there and won the game," Dungy says.

"If you play better than the other team, you'll beat them wherever the game is played, whatever the weather is. ... We really don't subscribe to that indoor-outdoor theory."



http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2005-01-12-cold-weather-teams_x.htm

BleedinPandG
11-17-2007, 04:28 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


I like the concept, however, as with Uffda I believe the fans wouldn't.

I never got to see a game at the Met, but I can remember on more than one occasion, people that I knew beeeyatching about how fricken cold it was to watch a game.

Wonder what would happen if our fans had to re-endure those types of elements.

I for one believe the noise the 12th man can make in the dome is much more of a hinderance to a visiting team than the elements.
Remember, our guys have to play in them as well.


Actually, an outdoor stadium doesn't have to be less noisy then a Dome, it's all in the acoustic design.
I can guarantee whatever stadium they go with, it will be designed to be loud.

Second, for the pansies wanting warmth.
Why not create good doors to the concourse so even on those cold days the wimps can go out and find the warmth they crave every stoppage of play or whatnot.
Maybe the heated seats aren't a bad idea either.
Put a little quarter machine on the side... $1 for 5 minutes of heat...

I love the stadium design posed.
Do something like the Bucs did down in Tampa but on a grander scale.
Lets give the Vikings team a real identity, the franchise... the fans!!
I like it.

ultravikingfan
11-17-2007, 05:09 PM
"RK." wrote:


"ultravikingfan" wrote:


The public should know that they are financing a football stadium; not a mult-purpose stadium.
It can be a football stadium that can host concerts and other events still, but it is there for football.
What a huge advantage it would be to have it snowing and cold playing other teams.
You know darn well that once Nov. comes that roof will be closed.

Why is it you guys think this is some huge advantage to us... It isn't.
If its a disadvantage to one team it is the same disadvantage to another.
Denver gets beat in the snow by visiting teams from southern climates.
Chicago gets beat in the snow by teams from domed stadiums.
It is true for all teams that have stadiums that play in fucked up weather.
Also the Super Bowl is never played in those conditions.
I have said this before and I will say it again.
Pay attention

Bud Grant used to fly the Vikings out of MN in the winter to practice for playoff games because the fucking field was frozen and it was too cold to practice during playoff times.
If you have an indoor practice facility what makes you think playing outside for the game is some kind of advantage?
Its only an advantage if you have a crappy team that is hoping the weather will beat a better team because you can't.
However that is not going to help you win a Super Bowl.
Not ever.
Its just a bunch of macho bullshit.
When the metro-dome was built one of the reasons given was that we were at a disadvantage in January during the playoff time because the weather hindered our ability to practice for playoff games and we were not as prepared as we could be.
A great runner slipping and sliding and not able to cut is not a great runner.
Same goes for pass receivers.
Same goes for Quarterbacks.
Open air stadiums are great where its warm in the winter and they can be used.
Face it the winters suck in MN and playing outdoors in it is not an advantage to a good team.


What was Tampa Bays record for years when playing in <40 degrees?
And this was when they are good.
It is an advantage.
You cannot tell me that when it is -10 the Colts are the same team?

Your just a puss who does not like to be cold...admit it!
;D

NodakPaul
11-17-2007, 05:39 PM
"BleedinPandG" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


I like the concept, however, as with Uffda I believe the fans wouldn't.

I never got to see a game at the Met, but I can remember on more than one occasion, people that I knew beeeyatching about how fricken cold it was to watch a game.

Wonder what would happen if our fans had to re-endure those types of elements.

I for one believe the noise the 12th man can make in the dome is much more of a hinderance to a visiting team than the elements.
Remember, our guys have to play in them as well.


Actually, an outdoor stadium doesn't have to be less noisy then a Dome, it's all in the acoustic design.
I can guarantee whatever stadium they go with, it will be designed to be loud.

Second, for the pansies wanting warmth.
Why not create good doors to the concourse so even on those cold days the wimps can go out and find the warmth they crave every stoppage of play or whatnot.
Maybe the heated seats aren't a bad idea either.
Put a little quarter machine on the side... $1 for 5 minutes of heat...

I love the stadium design posed.
Do something like the Bucs did down in Tampa but on a grander scale.
Lets give the Vikings team a real identity, the franchise... the fans!!
I like it.


Have you had even been to a football game in the Old Met in the winter?
At least half of the people who want an open air stadium never went, so they are only imagining what it would be like.
The other half seemly forgot all the bitching about the weather at the old met before it was closed.
You think people bitch about the metrodome now?
That is nothing compared to what people thought of the met.

But for the record, again, I don't want a roof, retractable orotherwise, just because it would be warmer.
I want it so that the public money spent could be recouped by the public.
Some people try and say that they could still hold concerts in an open air stadium - and they can.
But if you have ever worked in the concert tour industry you would know that performers require a larger percentage of the proceeds and a larger garunteed amount to play in open air because they typically do not sell as well as closed venues, and/or they can be rained out.
Plus, that only covers concerts.
What about all of the trade shows and other events that help generate money for the stadium?

Public money for an open air stadium is a bad investment for the public.
As much as I love the vikings, I would rather not see the people of Minnesota screwed over in order to get them a stadium.
NOw if the Vikings paid for it without public funds, like was suggested earlier. then I am fine with it...

BadlandsVikings
11-17-2007, 06:02 PM
"RK." wrote:


http://www.crala.org/internet-site/Projects/Hoover/images/coliseum.jpg

This is still available and its open air too.
;D


I used to like you, but now I hope your cats dissapear
:D

RK.
11-17-2007, 06:05 PM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:



What was Tampa Bays record for years when playing in <40 degrees?
And this was when they are good.
It is an advantage.
You cannot tell me that when it is -10 the Colts are the same team?

Your just a puss who does not like to be cold...admit it!

;D

When its -10 nobody is the same team.
TB's record had nothing to do with the temp.
Maybe they just lost to better teams..ever think of that?
Playing in freezing weather is not going to bring us a Super Bowl victory.
In fact it just makes it harder to sign free agents that could help us out.