Stadium thread

[hibbingviking]

I'm really excited at what could potentially come from this upcoming MFN game at TCF, as far as getting a new open-air stadium. The big argument against a roofless stadium is of course that a lot of people wouldn't go to a winter weather game. This game has a BIG chance to change that perception. We've been given a very strange gift in a way, and I would love to see a full and happy crowd enjoying the game despite below freezing temps and maybe other winter elements.

Even though it shouldn't matter, I realize the performance of the team and outcome of the game are going to influence the whole experience for people but I would think though that most people would be able to set aside a possible crappy showing from the Vikes and acknowledge that watching a game outside wasn't as bad as some would lead you to believe. People did it all the time back in the old days and the team itself was known for playing, and playing well, in the bitter cold and snow. People have gotten soft and forgotten where they live. This kind of weather is a huge part of the culture of the entire region and the voting public needs to realize/be reminded that it doesn't take a whole lot of effort to dress warm and prepare for the experience. You already live here so obviously you tolerate the cold on some level, all it takes is layering up with the winter clothes you already have and the whole experience will be great. Unique too.

It also lowers the price tag, by a pretty significant chunk if I remember correctly (compared to a "dome" with retractable roof). Something important to understand is that a modern outdoor stadium built to handle our winters would likely be a very welcoming place. It won't be fully exposed to the elements like the Old Met and it will be even better than what the Gophers have now at TCF. The concourse will either be partially indoors or warmed by giant super-heated radiators (these could also go under seating and overhanging areas). They would still probably spend like half a billion on the place so you can be sure it would have all kinds of neat stuff to make the cold games a fun experience. Let's not also forget, most of the games will be played in the fall. Barely any snow or sub-zero temps then, and fall here can sometimes be the most perfect time of year. People who shoot down the idea of an outdoor stadium act like we'll be playing every single game in winter-like conditions, which is completely absurd!

One thing we'll lose when we get a new stadium, roof or no roof, is the loud atmosphere of the dome. Some sports media person (maybe Aikmen during the game in Detroit) said that the newer "domes" aren't as loud as old style ones like the Metrodome. They're not even really domes, they're just huge sheds. So if we lose that advantage, let's give ourselves a new/old one. Bring back the winter aura of the pre-dome team. The Packers and Bears do it, why not the Vikings? Show 'em you're tougher than them. That's what this game is all about, isn't it?

the vikes had a great home record at the old met. i miss those days. what a huge homefield advantage in december and january. it not like minnesota has bad weather all season. september-november is very nice outdoors in minnesota.

[dkoby]

I guarantee you that it's more cost-effective for him to sell the team rather than move it.

I guess I missed your point. What difference does it make if Wilf moves the team or if he sells it and they move? either way it would suck. My point was that you can never take what they say in the press at face value.

[TrenchGoon]

I'm really excited at what could potentially come from this upcoming MFN game at TCF, as far as getting a new open-air stadium. The big argument against a roofless stadium is of course that a lot of people wouldn't go to a winter weather game. This game has a BIG chance to change that perception. We've been given a very strange gift in a way, and I would love to see a full and happy crowd enjoying the game despite below freezing temps and maybe other winter elements.

Even though it shouldn't matter, I realize the performance of the team and outcome of the game are going to influence the whole experience for people but I would think though that most people would be able to set aside a possible crappy showing from the Vikes and acknowledge that watching a game outside wasn't as bad as some would lead you to believe. People did it all the time back in the old days and the team itself was known for playing, and playing well, in the bitter cold and snow. People have gotten soft and forgotten where they live. This kind of weather is a huge part of the culture of the entire region and the voting public needs to realize/be reminded that it doesn't take a whole lot of effort to dress warm and prepare for the experience. You already live here so obviously you tolerate the cold on some level, all it takes is layering up with the winter clothes you already have and the whole experience will be great. Unique too.

It also lowers the price tag, by a pretty significant chunk if I remember correctly (compared to a "dome" with retractable roof). Something important to understand is that a modern outdoor stadium built to handle our winters would likely be a very welcoming place. It won't be fully exposed to the elements like the Old Met and it will be even better than what the Gophers have now at TCF. The concourse will either be partially indoors or warmed by giant super-heated radiators (these could also go under seating and overhanging areas). They would still probably spend like half a billion on the place so you can be sure it would have all kinds of neat stuff to make the cold games a fun experience. Let's not also forget, most of the games will be played in the fall. Barely any snow or sub-zero temps then, and fall here can sometimes be the most perfect time of year. People who shoot down the idea of an outdoor stadium act like we'll be playing every single game in winter-like conditions, which is completely absurd!

One thing we'll lose when we get a new stadium, roof or no roof, is the loud atmosphere of the dome. Some sports media person (maybe Aikmen during the game in Detroit) said that the newer "domes" aren't as loud as old style ones like the Metrodome. They're not even really domes, they're just huge sheds. So if we lose that advantage, let's give ourselves a new/old one. Bring back the winter aura of the pre-dome team. The Packers and Bears do it, why not the Vikings? Show 'em you're tougher than them. That's what this game is all about, isn't it?

I'm with you all the way...if plane tickets weren't so much right now because of christmas, the wife and i would be headed up to minnesota to watch an outdoor game. I am jealous of the poeple who will get to be there...

[J. Kapp 11]

I'm really excited at what could potentially come from this upcoming MFN game at TCF, as far as getting a new open-air stadium. The big argument against a roofless stadium is of course that a lot of people wouldn't go to a winter weather game. This game has a BIG chance to change that perception. We've been given a very strange gift in a way, and I would love to see a full and happy crowd enjoying the game despite below freezing temps and maybe other winter elements.

Even though it shouldn't matter, I realize the performance of the team and outcome of the game are going to influence the whole experience for people but I would think though that most people would be able to set aside a possible crappy showing from the Vikes and acknowledge that watching a game outside wasn't as bad as some would lead you to believe. People did it all the time back in the old days and the team itself was known for playing, and playing well, in the bitter cold and snow. People have gotten soft and forgotten where they live. This kind of weather is a huge part of the culture of the entire region and the voting public needs to realize/be reminded that it doesn't take a whole lot of effort to dress warm and prepare for the experience. You already live here so obviously you tolerate the cold on some level, all it takes is layering up with the winter clothes you already have and the whole experience will be great. Unique too.

It also lowers the price tag, by a pretty significant chunk if I remember correctly (compared to a "dome" with retractable roof). Something important to understand is that a modern outdoor stadium built to handle our winters would likely be a very welcoming place. It won't be fully exposed to the elements like the Old Met and it will be even better than what the Gophers have now at TCF. The concourse will either be partially indoors or warmed by giant super-heated radiators (these could also go under seating and overhanging areas). They would still probably spend like half a billion on the place so you can be sure it would have all kinds of neat stuff to make the cold games a fun experience. Let's not also forget, most of the games will be played in the fall. Barely any snow or sub-zero temps then, and fall here can sometimes be the most perfect time of year. People who shoot down the idea of an outdoor stadium act like we'll be playing every single game in winter-like conditions, which is completely absurd!

One thing we'll lose when we get a new stadium, roof or no roof, is the loud atmosphere of the dome. Some sports media person (maybe Aikmen during the game in Detroit) said that the newer "domes" aren't as loud as old style ones like the Metrodome. They're not even really domes, they're just huge sheds. So if we lose that advantage, let's give ourselves a new/old one. Bring back the winter aura of the pre-dome team. The Packers and Bears do it, why not the Vikings? Show 'em you're tougher than them. That's what this game is all about, isn't it?

I agree with you in principle, but I have to disagree pragmatically because of the climate in the Twin Cities. Here's why.

Zygi isn't going to fund the stadium all by himself. We know that. So he needs help from the taxpayers, who are understandably reluctant to pay for anything unless it is going to mean economic growth for the community.

An outdoor stadium is still going to cost about $700 million, minus whatever Zygi contributes. Such a facility would be useless for about six months out of the year for anything other than the 10 Vikings football games (counting preseason) that would be played on it. As a matter of fact, you'd then have THREE taxpayer-funded stadiums in the Twin Cities area that would sit unused for large portions of the year (TCF, Target Field and the new Vikings stadium). All you have to do is look at the work it's taking to get TCF ready for one football game to see how useless an outdoor stadium is in the winter time.

But if you spend the extra $150 million on a retractable roof, you then have a venue that can be used for any event at any time of year. And such a stadium would be at a competitive advantage over the other two outdoor stadiums.

A retractable-roof stadium in Minneapolis' climate is simply a better value. You can still play outdoor football games, but it also becomes a true 12-months-a-year venue for sporting events, concerts, monster trucks, whatever you want. That means the taxpayers get their ROI far sooner than they would for an outdoor-only stadium.

[vikeinmontana]

good post kapp. it seems to me that people want to turn the stadium argument into some good fan/bad fan....strong fan/weak fan argument and that's not what it is.

i'm so tired of people talking about how it's so good that there are "real" fans left that want to watch games in an open-air stadium. well you know what, i would LOVE to watch the monday game outside like my family gets too. I love games outside, but i don't think i'm any more of a real fan than anyone else.

the fact is that times are a changing guys. football is changing. it's all about money now. and it simply would not make any sense to spend so much money on a stadium that can not be used very often and could never host a superbowl.

a retractable roof would obviously be the best option although in light of how hard it's been to get any money...this seems like a stretch. a dome of some sort would be the next best option. and an open-air stadium in the twin cities would just be dumb.

i want a facility that can host nfl games, superbowls, final fours, concerts, etc...

[HornedMessiah]

All you have to do is look at the work it's taking to get TCF ready for one football game to see how useless an outdoor stadium is in the winter time.

Well that's not painting an entirely true picture. TCF wasn't built to handle the kind of weather we get in December-January, and like I said before a new 500-700 million dollar outdoor stadium would have all kinds of unique additions to make it accommodating. It would be built with that type of weather in mind. Also, TCF was just winterized. If this had happened earlier in the season while the Gophers were still playing the stadium would've been ready to go because their crews were still keeping it up. You can't take this weird, frantic situation and say it would apply to the Vikes if they had their own similar place.

But if you spend the extra $150 million on a retractable roof, you then have a venue that can be used for any event at any time of year. And such a stadium would be at a competitive advantage over the other two outdoor stadiums.

A retractable-roof stadium in Minneapolis' climate is simply a better value. You can still play outdoor football games, but it also becomes a true 12-months-a-year venue for sporting events, concerts, monster trucks, whatever you want. That means the taxpayers get their ROI far sooner than they would for an outdoor-only stadium.

I completely agree with what you're saying here, I was actually going to touch on that in my original post but I figured it was already too long and I would let someone else maybe bring it up. It is a kinda thing where, if they're going to build a new stadium they might as well just go hog-wild and get the one with the retractable roof, right? Why not? Already going to the trouble of building the new place, might as well make it as best as you can because it will be the home of the Vikes for another 30+ years and it can be used for all kinds of other events. That's in an ideal world. We can say, oh it's only 200 million more, just do it. But of course that money comes from somewhere and taxpayers right now really aren't too keen on the idea of kicking in for that. I guess in my first post I was coming from the perspective that money is a HUGE HUGE issue and they might not be able to generate that extra 200-250 million or whatever. It's dumb and very short-sighted, but that is what we have to work with. So if they only have like 600-700 million to work with then it will have to be an outdoor stadium, and it would be stupid for people to say "#### it, it's indoors or nothing at all". The public and legislature hasn't given the team a lot to work with, they don't want to give the Vikings enough money to build an indoor stadium but at the same time they basically tell the team that wherever you get the money from it's gotta be enough to build an indoor stadium. It's complete bull #### and is a big part of the reason why relocation to LA is talked about so much lately.

It all ties back to what I said in my first post about an outdoor stadium. Again, people need to realize that MOST of the games will be played in gorgeous fall weather, and even the games this time of year in the snow and cold won't be as horrible as some would lead you to believe. And as far as an outdoor stadium not being able to handle events in the Vikings off season, I'll just say that I'd rather keep my football team. The state marching band competitions and dog shows or whatever else can cry in their pillows and find some other venue to do their thing. The priority here is to keep the team in Minnesota.

[purple guy]

^But the key to public support, IMO (and only IMO) is selling the fact that more than just the Vikings will be able to use/benefit from the stadium. Local businesses/citizens would be more supportive, probably, if there was more uses for the stadium, other than football. While it costs more, I dont think it makes sense to spend that much money and not do it so it has more uses. IMO, I dont think the Vikings/Wilfs should be given a dime, but if they want some, they'll have to appeal to more than just football IMO. JM2C.

[BGM]

The only thing keeping the stadium from being built at this point is funding. Mark Dayton, the Governor-elect, supports the idea of a Racino at Canterbury Downs. It's probably the only way funding will happen as the atmosphere here in Minnesota is very much against any kind of public funding via taxes or levies, especially in light of recent major cuts. The hitch in this option is a very vocal group of anti-gambling advocates both in the public and the Legislature.

Most people in the state support building a new stadium, IMO. However, they also would like to see a multi-purpose stadium, meaning a retractable roof is almost a given.

[glg]

^But the key to public support, IMO (and only IMO) is selling the fact that more than just the Vikings will be able to use/benefit from the stadium. Local businesses/citizens would be more supportive, probably, if there was more uses for the stadium, other than football. While it costs more, I dont think it makes sense to spend that much money and not do it so it has more uses. IMO, I dont think the Vikings/Wilfs should be given a dime, but if they want some, they'll have to appeal to more than just football IMO. JM2C.

Totally agree. I remember reading a couple years ago that the Dome was in use a staggering number of days per year, over 300. Not possible with an outdoor space.

[J. Kapp 11]

Well that's not painting an entirely true picture. TCF wasn't built to handle the kind of weather we get in December-January, and like I said before a new 500-700 million dollar outdoor stadium would have all kinds of unique additions to make it accommodating. It would be built with that type of weather in mind. Also, TCF was just winterized. If this had happened earlier in the season while the Gophers were still playing the stadium would've been ready to go because their crews were still keeping it up. You can't take this weird, frantic situation and say it would apply to the Vikes if they had their own similar place.

Maybe. But from the videos I've seen, undoing the winterization isn't the problem. The problem is the three feet of snow that's blanketing both the field and the stands. They're having to use bulldozers to remove the snow from the field, and it's going to take hundreds of volunteers to remove the snow from the stands. The picture just screams, "not a smart idea" to me. I could be wrong. And there's absolutely no way you'd be able to use the facility for anything but football.

I completely agree with what you're saying here, I was actually going to touch on that in my original post but I figured it was already too long and I would let someone else maybe bring it up. It is a kinda thing where, if they're going to build a new stadium they might as well just go hog-wild and get the one with the retractable roof, right? Why not? Already going to the trouble of building the new place, might as well make it as best as you can because it will be the home of the Vikes for another 30+ years and it can be used for all kinds of other events. That's in an ideal world. We can say, oh it's only 200 million more, just do it. But of course that money comes from somewhere and taxpayers right now really aren't too keen on the idea of kicking in for that. I guess in my first post I was coming from the perspective that money is a HUGE HUGE issue and they might not be able to generate that extra 200-250 million or whatever. It's dumb and very short-sighted, but that is what we have to work with. So if they only have like 600-700 million to work with then it will have to be an outdoor stadium, and it would be stupid for people to say "#### it, it's indoors or nothing at all". The public and legislature hasn't given the team a lot to work with, they don't want to give the Vikings enough money to build an indoor stadium but at the same time they basically tell the team that wherever you get the money from it's gotta be enough to build an indoor stadium. It's complete bull #### and is a big part of the reason why relocation to LA is talked about so much lately.

It all ties back to what I said in my first post about an outdoor stadium. Again, people need to realize that MOST of the games will be played in gorgeous fall weather, and even the games this time of year in the snow and cold won't be as horrible as some would lead you to believe. And as far as an outdoor stadium not being able to handle events in the Vikings off season, I'll just say that I'd rather keep my football team. The state marching band competitions and dog shows or whatever else can cry in their pillows and find some other venue to do their thing. The priority here is to keep the team in Minnesota.

But again, you're talking only about football games. Remember, non-football fans get to vote, too.

What happens if U2 is going on a big tour? Let's say they'd like to play a concert in Minneapolis in January. If you build an open-air stadium, where are they going to go? They draw too many people for an arena, and their space-age 360-degree stage needs a stadium. In the end, they'd bypass the Twin Cities and go to Detroit. That's bad. People pay twice as much to see U2 as they do for an NFL game, and you can seat lots more people for a concert than you can for a game. That's a LOT of money being left on the table, not to mention the spike in business for surrounding proprietors.

But ... offer them a retractable roof stadium, and you have a good chance of landing them.

Of course, that's the most extreme case. But everything else is off the table, too. I'm sorry, but $700 million for only football in the cold months is not a better value than $850 million for a venue that can host other big-money events.

And like PG said, a multi-purpose, retractable-roof facility is going to be easier to sell to the public than simply a football stadium, even though it's more expensive. People always follow their own self-interest. If I'm NOT a football fan, and I'm being asked to pay more in sales tax just so the Minnesota Vikings don't have to foot the bill for a new stadium, I would definitely vote "no." But if I know the facility will be used for other things besides helping one football organization, things that I'd be interested in, then I might be convinced.

[glg]

What happens if U2 is going on a big tour? Let's say they'd like to play a concert in Minneapolis in January. If you build an open-air stadium, where are they going to go? They draw too many people for an arena, and their space-age 360-degree stage needs a stadium. In the end, they'd bypass the Twin Cities and go to Detroit. That's bad. People pay twice as much to see U2 as they do for an NFL game, and you can seat lots more people for a concert than you can for a game. That's a LOT of money being left on the table, not to mention the spike in business for surrounding proprietors.

Sorry, gotta knock this argument as a resident of a much larger city/metro area that doesn't have an indoor stadium. If U2 really wants to play Chicago in Jan/Feb, they work with the NBA and NHL to get a gap in the Bulls/Hawks schedules and play at the United Center.

[J. Kapp 11]

Sorry, gotta knock this argument as a resident of a much larger city/metro area that doesn't have an indoor stadium. If U2 really wants to play Chicago in Jan/Feb, they work with the NBA and NHL to get a gap in the Bulls/Hawks schedules and play at the United Center.

C'mon. It might not be the best example in the world, but I'm making a point. I'm just saying ... if you build an open-air stadium, it's useless in the winter for anything but football.

And as a huge fan of U2, I'll rebut your knock of my argument ... I guarantee you, they don't play the United Center. Not these days. The 360 stage won't fit. It's 170 feet tall.

Truth is, U2 probably don't play in the northern U.S. during the winter. My point remains.

[glg]

And as a huge fan of U2, I'll rebut your knock of my argument ... I guarantee you, they don't play the United Center. Not these days. The 360 stage won't fit. It's 170 feet tall.

Come on, this stuff ebbs and flows. For 360, yes, they played Soldier, and are scheduled to do so again next summer. Note that they're not playing the Dome when they come to MN as part of it, they're playing at TCF. Vertigo? UC (Target Center in MN). Elevation? UC (Target Center in MN).

Truth is, U2 probably don't play in the northern U.S. during the winter. My point remains.

Not really. You just can't make an outdoor stadium point about concerts because they get around it here in Chicago, where it's not as cold, but it's cold enough. Same with New York. Not as cold, but cold enough not to play outdoors in the winter and there is no enclosed stadium.

There are plenty of reasons to have an enclosed stadium. Rock concerts in the winter just isn't one of them.

[glg]

And Lester Bagley has said that U of Min is not a suitable NFL Stadium.

They'll find that it is during construction...

[bigskyeric]

I'm really excited at what could potentially come from this upcoming MFN game at TCF, as far as getting a new open-air stadium. The big argument against a roofless stadium is of course that a lot of people wouldn't go to a winter weather game. This game has a BIG chance to change that perception. We've been given a very strange gift in a way, and I would love to see a full and happy crowd enjoying the game despite below freezing temps and maybe other winter elements.

Even though it shouldn't matter, I realize the performance of the team and outcome of the game are going to influence the whole experience for people but I would think though that most people would be able to set aside a possible crappy showing from the Vikes and acknowledge that watching a game outside wasn't as bad as some would lead you to believe. People did it all the time back in the old days and the team itself was known for playing, and playing well, in the bitter cold and snow. People have gotten soft and forgotten where they live. This kind of weather is a huge part of the culture of the entire region and the voting public needs to realize/be reminded that it doesn't take a whole lot of effort to dress warm and prepare for the experience. You already live here so obviously you tolerate the cold on some level, all it takes is layering up with the winter clothes you already have and the whole experience will be great. Unique too.

It also lowers the price tag, by a pretty significant chunk if I remember correctly (compared to a "dome" with retractable roof). Something important to understand is that a modern outdoor stadium built to handle our winters would likely be a very welcoming place. It won't be fully exposed to the elements like the Old Met and it will be even better than what the Gophers have now at TCF. The concourse will either be partially indoors or warmed by giant super-heated radiators (these could also go under seating and overhanging areas). They would still probably spend like half a billion on the place so you can be sure it would have all kinds of neat stuff to make the cold games a fun experience. Let's not also forget, most of the games will be played in the fall. Barely any snow or sub-zero temps then, and fall here can sometimes be the most perfect time of year. People who shoot down the idea of an outdoor stadium act like we'll be playing every single game in winter-like conditions, which is completely absurd!

One thing we'll lose when we get a new stadium, roof or no roof, is the loud atmosphere of the dome. Some sports media person (maybe Aikmen during the game in Detroit) said that the newer "domes" aren't as loud as old style ones like the Metrodome. They're not even really domes, they're just huge sheds. So if we lose that advantage, let's give ourselves a new/old one. Bring back the winter aura of the pre-dome team. The Packers and Bears do it, why not the Vikings? Show 'em you're tougher than them. That's what this game is all about, isn't it?

The Met was the biggest home field advantage to date of any team. The MetroDome has it's noise advantages too. Last season proved it. In the end, I feel Open Air Football in Minnesota is a thing of the past only because I fear PLAYERS will not want to come and freeze their rear ends off. As a fan, I have no problem freezing for a few hours. Thats what they make whiskey for. But I fear the Vikes would have an even less of a shot if the stadium is outdoors.