USA - Stadium and Arena Development News [Archive] - Page 14

Bluewarning

May 1st, 2007, 02:58 AM

This ten years is almost like a tryout up until 2011 or 2012. The NFL then wants a possible overseas Super Bowl to go with a rotation. I'm still waiting for more links on the subject, but league officials including the old and new commissioner have talked about it a couple of times. There's a link on one of the Cowboys forums talking about it. Will be interesting to see who gets the 2011 Super Bowl, and if a US city gets to bid on 2012 or not.

I dont know, sounds a bit iffy to me. Nobody likes our game and it would just draw the money from places like New Orleans, Miami, Diego, etc. to someplace else that in essence only cares about the money and publicity. I think its somewhat of a slap in the face of the true fans.

Not only that, but the time zone thing would be a factor. I can see Toronto and Mexico City. Toronto is a safe bet because of its proximity to the U.S. However, it really wouldnt have an international feel to it. Mexico City would probally be a safe pick. While soccer rules there--NFL fans are growing pretty rapidly from what I hear. Taglibue said they have the second most fans compared to the U.S. for NFL football. Elsewhere in the America's is a bit hard. Brazil and Argentina are staunch soccer sporters. If its not soccer in the America's--its baseball. Even our two biggest haters are baseball fans (Cuba/Venezuela),

If it was going to be in Europe--it would most likely be in London. Like most of this crazy world--they love their soccer and we all know the ferocity of their attacks on our sports on this site. Would it work? Probally--because there are a significant number of NFL fans there, not to mention Americans living, working, and travelling in the U.K. Germany would be the next best place followed by the Netherlands. Attendances in those two countries rose this past year.

Asia is kind of a odd continent. They seem to be more receptive to different sports than Latin America and Europe. There is alot of potential in China for the NFL, NBA, and MLB. All three leagues are planning games there. The NFL game this year was scrapped unfortunaly and might play in 09' after the Olympics. Tokyo, Manila, Hong Kong, Seoul, and Taipei might make good locations.

Then you always have Australia--the most similar to the U.S. outside North America.

nomarandlee

May 1st, 2007, 03:55 AM

Sorry we are taking this so far off topic but the idea of an international Super Bowl intrigues.

I don't really get this whole slap in the face to fans/U.S. cities stuff. The only ones who will be put out are some corporate fat cats who actually may enjoy going to London or Frankfurt for the dozenth time anyway. Not to mention those that often go to the Super Bowl are not going to be dissuaded financially from taking an expensive flight to Europe. If anything they are the same people that are more then likely will be able to afford it and ejoy it. Its not like the lower or even middle class is what makes up the Super Bowl audience.

The fact is that if you are not growing you are stagnating in the entertainment world. You want to grow a business you have to give a reason to buy and care about your product. Would soccer ever be at the point it is today and likely to grow if there hadn't been a World Cup or professional leagues or top tier league tours in the U.S.? Not likely.

Football is a great sport, why keep up the perception of it as a provincial insular American oddity when it is such a great sport but just doesn't have the exposure. If you believe its a truly great game and think deserves to be appreciated then why not give it a chance to do so. I truly believe its such a fantastic sport it only needs the right exposure to grow. In the long run if it is gains appreciation oversees there will be a more fun dynamic league (or leagues), a better more international pool of players, and more revenue going to secure the best athletic talent in the world for football players. A few Super Bowls seems like a minor cost in the big scheme of things to help to that end. I think even for many Americans it will bring an interesting and unique element to the game.

Mr. Fusion

May 1st, 2007, 04:45 AM

I don't really get this whole slap in the face to fans/U.S. cities stuff. The only ones who will be put out are some corporate fat cats who actually may enjoy going to London or Frankfurt for the dozenth time anyway.
Precisely! :yes:

And these corporate big whigs who comprise the majority of fans at the actual game are the same ones that persuade the NFL to put Miami and New Orleans in the permanent rotation so they can take in the vibrant night life at these cities. You can almost hear the collective moan any time the Super Bowl is held in a boring or Northern town.

A billion dollars? That's crazy. Am I the only one that thinks the Metrodome is fine for football?
No, you are not alone. The Metrodome is fine for football. But when wealthy professional sports teams want a new home, they either get it from their current home town or someone else will oblige. It is not fair. It makes little sense. But it is the way things are plain and simple.

The reason it costs $1Bn and not $600Mn is it will be a climate controlled facility, so that it can host more than simply 10 NFL games per year.

:hug:

rantanamo

May 1st, 2007, 05:20 AM

The metrodome is fine from the average fan's POV. The problem is, they are likely not producing as much revenue as other stadiums with more, larger and more modern suites and club suites. This is one of the few non-shared revenue an NFL owner can keep. I don't blame them if that's their only way to get in the black.

I also imagine that the metrodome hosts many more events than just baseball and football. Done right these venues can be very useful for a city. This proposal looks like that type of project that could actually take advantage of where it is.

robbytheguy

May 1st, 2007, 03:33 PM

#2 is the one that will be built. They settled on it some time ago.

Bluewarning

May 1st, 2007, 11:37 PM

Sorry we are taking this so far off topic but the idea of an international Super Bowl intrigues.

I don't really get this whole slap in the face to fans/U.S. cities stuff. The only ones who will be put out are some corporate fat cats who actually may enjoy going to London or Frankfurt for the dozenth time anyway. Not to mention those that often go to the Super Bowl are not going to be dissuaded financially from taking an expensive flight to Europe. If anything they are the same people that are more then likely will be able to afford it and ejoy it. Its not like the lower or even middle class is what makes up the Super Bowl audience.

.

I dont completely agree. Detroit benefited greatly when it hosted the Steelers-Seahawks Superbowl. Fans across the Midwest, as well as around the country came to Detroit to take part in some of the events outside the game. These games have tremendous impacts on the host cities. Its a slap in the face to our own cities that love NFL football---as opposed to Paris or London--which really could care less.

And most fans at the Superbowl arent exactly rich, fatcats. Sure, there are alot--but many of those sitting in the nosebleeds of the Superdome are probally random joes who came to see their team. It kind of makes going to the big game even more difficult by having it across the Atlantic for the average fan.

Somnifor

May 2nd, 2007, 12:18 AM

This was in the Star Tribune yesterday. The Target Center is an NBA basketball arena, it's capacity is around 18,000 or so.

www.startribune.com/503/story/1152461.html

Green-roof advocates see a big target in Minneapolis
As city officials get ready to plan for a new roof on Target Center, talk has turned to whether it's feasible to use sustainable design.

By Jay Weiner, Star Tribune

These days, replacing a roof on a public building is more than a surface thing. It's a sustainability thing. It could become a symbolic, even money-making thing.

That's what Minneapolis city officials think as they approach a seemingly ho-hum endeavor that carries implications for the planet.

The task? Redoing one of the largest roofs in Minnesota -- 3.3 acres worth -- atop the 17-year-old Target Center. Local architects and sustainable-design advocates say if the city wants to make a bold statement while, over time, saving energy and money, the arena's 144,000-square-foot roof should go green.

"It seems to me we need to lead by example with our own buildings," said City Council Member Lisa Goodman about the prospect of a $2.2 million "green roof" on the city-owned arena. "It would send a huge signal from a public-policy perspective."

No one knows yet whether it's possible. Tom Daniel, business development manager for the city's Community, Planning and Economic Development Department, said an assessment of the effects of the weight of a green roof on the arena's structure hasn't been completed. Target Center's roof is tested often with the tons of speakers that some touring bands hang from the ceiling.

A city-funded study estimated that a green roof would cost $400,000 more than a traditional roof. But the green-roof technology would pay for itself in energy savings in about five years. Electric bills at Target Center are typically $60,000 per month.

If installed, Target Center would become the largest building in Minnesota with a green roof surface. What's more, it could be among the 10 largest green projects in the world.

"Bragging rights," said Minneapolis Finance Officer Patrick Born.

"A priceless branding tool for a city," said Mark Andrew, an environmental consultant to sports teams and facilities.

This discussion among the Timberwolves, the prime tenants of the arena, city officials and environmental and design experts comes at a coincidental time: The Fifth Annual International Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities Conference started Sunday and runs through Tuesday at the Hyatt Regency in Minneapolis.

Simply put, a green roof uses grass and vegetation on top of a waterproof membrane. Its benefits include keeping buildings cooler in the summer and somewhat warmer in the winter. In dense urban centers, green roofs tend to cool so-called "heat islands," which are created by lots of cars and the sun beating down on more traditional tar or rock roofs. A green roof retains rainfall, thereby reducing dirty runoff that ends up in the nearby Mississippi River.

A monetary bonus

There's something else green buildings, especially green sports arenas, might be able to do: generate sponsorship and advertising revenues.

The city, which pays $6 million a year on Target Center's mortgage and $1.75 million annually to subsidize building operations, would love to "monetize" the green roof by finding a sponsor for it.

Andrew, a former Hennepin County commissioner, owns GreenMark Sports and advises teams and facilities on how to go -- and make -- green. "Sports buildings become huge billboards for environmental sustainability," Andrew said.

The concept is this: A contractor seeking such a high-profile job may trade a signage deal with the Wolves for a reduction on the cost of installation. Or a corporation will want to be linked to the trendy green vibes and seek naming rights for the roof.

But a final decision on whether to go green isn't expected until fall. A new roof, green or not, is expected to be installed in the summer of 2008.

Mr. Fusion

May 2nd, 2007, 01:44 AM

What is the need for a new roof to begin with? I have not heard of any other arena roof being replaced in the United States.

:hug:

Somnifor

May 2nd, 2007, 01:50 AM

I would guess that all buildings need a new roof from time to time but it is usually such an unsexy project that it doesn't get press.

nomarandlee

May 2nd, 2007, 06:07 AM

I love the idea of a green roof for arenas. It would be great on warm nights to go up the top during the intermission of a hockey or basketball game and have a beer. Kind of like a huge beer garden. I wish the United Center in Chicago would think about getting one.

Benn

May 2nd, 2007, 07:28 AM

Oddly enough the Metrodome is the only major american sports venue to turn a profit anually (because it is so multipurpose, its hosted every major sporting event, concerts and more with three major tennants), however alot that goes to the city of Minneapolis (as it should, if the sports world made sense) not the Wilfs. The Vikings do control the revenue from their tickets, and the hundred odd suites. They don't completely concessions, parking ect. like wilf would like. Also if Zigi can get a nice real estate reach-around (like the new proposal calls for) I am sure he will take it.
The dome does have phemonenal atmosphere, if the Vikings are doing well its pretty much impossible to hear the person next you. The crowd is kind of fickle, but it can be a blast, especially for later games when everybody has had a chance to drink something. Also the layout is very compact by NFl standards and the back row really isn't that bad (about 64 rows back on the side, 59 on the ends), unless your behind a pillar. Concessions are more than good enough. And parking really isn't as big of a deal as everyone makes it ou to be. In terms of fan amenities however the dome does have pretty narrow concourses and way to few restrooms. I try to get to three or four Vikings games a year, and since here is always 64,384 people , with an official capacity of 64,121 you'll be waiting a while to get to a urinal if you a guy, and an eternity for a toilet if you happen to be woman.

Jim Jones WINS!!!!!!

May 2nd, 2007, 01:57 PM

there are other Green roof projects in regards to carbon emissions reductions.
A stadium in Austria I believe has an entire roof covered with PV cells which puts electricity to the grid . An Arena in Germany has a Similiar scheme with the heating of water to then heat to 500 local homes.

Whether it is actually green grass on top of the building or contrubiting to the grid with green power it is all good and can be a new revenue stream for sport complexes

Jim Jones WINS !!!!!!

Mr. Fusion

May 6th, 2007, 07:39 AM

Islanders' Arena Plans Still Alive

UNIONDALE, N.Y. — The New York Islanders may not be long for the National Hockey League playoffs, but their long-term plans for a new arena are still alive.

While opinions vary about whether he can pull it off, Islanders owner Charles Wang has stickhandled his plan for a renovation of the Nassau Coliseum and the surrounding property into a project that includes a couple of office buildings and residences.

This is different from the original $1.6-billion (U.S.) project Wang started out with. He was forced to drop what was called The Lighthouse, an office tower that would have included a hotel and condos, from the project but will continue with the arena renovations and office and housing developments.

However, it is still not clear just what will be in the final development of the arena and the 77 acres of property around it because the last hurdle is approval from the town of Hempstead. Islander officials said this could take another 18 months and that renovation of the arena, the second-oldest in the National Hockey League, will probably not start until 2009...

Source: Here! (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070418.wsptisles18/TPStory/Sports/columnists)

:hug:

Mr. Fusion

May 9th, 2007, 12:47 AM

NEW GARDEN TO GROW FAST

By TOM TOPOUSIS

May 8, 2007 -- A massive project to build a new Penn Station and move Madison Square Garden across Eighth Avenue could get started by year's end, says a state economic development official.

Moynihan Station Development Corp. President Robin Stout's comments to Midtown community leaders last week were the first public confirmation that the Spitzer administration would back the project.

The plan also includes three office towers, on top of or near where the Garden is now located, and the new Moynihan Train Station, on the Farley Post Office's Eighth Avenue side.

Stout said that the first phase, building the new Garden, would take five years and that the final phase could be done by 2017.

Source: Here! (http://www.nypost.com/seven/05082007/news/regionalnews/new_garden_to_grow_fast_regionalnews_tom_topousis.htm)

:hug:

TalB

May 9th, 2007, 01:52 AM

I would rather keep MSG where it is now. We don't need a new station house. BTW, Daniel Patrick Monyiham already has the NYS Supreme Courthouse, located at Foely Sq, named after him, so this won't be the first thing. It was bad enough to loose the original station house, and it will be worse to loose the Farely Bldg, also known as the General Post Office. Another thing is that James Dolan, who owns MSG, will only support it if he gets to keep his taxbreaks, which he won't.

Mr. Fusion

May 9th, 2007, 04:29 AM

It was bad enough to loose the original station house, and it will be worse to loose the Farely Bldg, also known as the General Post Office.
Losing old Penn Station was awful, it was a masterpiece. I presume any alteration to the Farley Building would be harshly scrutinized as it is a National Historic Landmark.

:yes:

nyrmetros

May 11th, 2007, 07:07 PM

Once again, not in favor of MSG V.
However if MSG V does go ahead, I wanna see 5, 000 standing room tickets available.

Mr. Fusion

May 12th, 2007, 01:36 AM

Once again, not in favor of MSG V.
However if MSG V does go ahead, I wanna see 5, 000 standing room tickets available.
I had a dream for an MSG V that was actually two 25,000 seat arenas connected to each other under one roof. As a venue [the current MSG] that hosts so many events, I thought it would make sense to build twin venues so it could host events simultaneously [example Rangers game one side, Knicks on the other... or circus on one side, convention on the other]

The politics surrounding convention space in Manhattan seem cut-throat though. :hug:

Bigmac1212

May 13th, 2007, 01:39 AM

In baseball, we characterize ballparks based on wether the batter or the pitcher have a distint advantage when playing there. Several factors that can make a ballpark a hitter friendly or pitcher friendly are outfield distances, wall heights, altitude, humidity, wind directions, and size of foul territory. Here's what I believe are some hitter's and pitcher's parks:
Hitter's Parks: Coors Field (Colorado Rockies), Minute Maid Park (Houston Astros), Fenway Park (Boston Red Sox)
Pitcher's park: Comerica Park (Detroit Tigers), Safeco Field (Seattle Mariners), RFK Stadium (Washington Nationals)
What do you guys think?

NittanyBLUE2002

May 13th, 2007, 02:25 AM

Shea Stadium: Pitchers Park
Yankee Stadium: Hitters Park
Wrigley Field: Hitters Park
Comiskey: Used to favor pitchers, now seems to favor hitters.

eMKay

May 13th, 2007, 02:53 AM

Dodger stadium: Pitchers park.

rantanamo

May 13th, 2007, 07:35 AM

Rangers Ballpark: Hitters Park

EllasOle

May 13th, 2007, 08:07 AM

Kauffman stadium = pitchers park
Mcafee Coliseum = pitchers park

DBR96A

May 13th, 2007, 09:56 AM

PNC Park = pitchers park (at least for visiting teams). :wallbash:

Calvin W

May 13th, 2007, 09:57 AM

Two arenas side by side would never fly, not even in New York. That is 730 event days a year, at 25,000 a pop. That would mean 18,250,000 potential tickets. Tall shoes to fill.

cinosanap

May 13th, 2007, 06:51 PM

Lol

I thought it said Hitler's Park! :lol:

rantanamo

May 14th, 2007, 12:54 AM

Its been said that Rangers Ballpark could be a pitchers park if they got rid of the office building in center field. Apparently it stops the winds out of the south from entering the park.

djrules5454

May 14th, 2007, 04:05 AM

Metrodome: Hitter's Park.

TalB

May 14th, 2007, 05:47 AM

Mr. Fusion

May 16th, 2007, 01:48 AM

Maybe they should just put the new MSG over the Hudson Yds so no buildings would have to be demolished, and the Dolans were thinking about the originally, but they decided to rennovate the current one instead.
Works for me! Are there any other powers that be that would object to such a location? :hug:

TalB

May 16th, 2007, 02:35 AM

Some wouldn't have liked it b/c there are no subway lines along 9th or 10th Aves, though it would have been just a one or two block walk from 8th Ave, which gets the A, C, and E trains.

nyrmetros

May 18th, 2007, 08:24 PM

MSG V is great because of it's transport links. For some people MSG becomes less viable if they actually have to walk 2 NYC blocks. weird I know.

TalB

May 20th, 2007, 02:32 AM

I find it very surprising that despite the fact that a number of stadiums/arenas in NYC have transportation yet people still end up driving instead.

MSG: Accessible from the A, C, E, 1, 2, and 3 trains of the subway and Penn Station recieves the LIRR, NJ Tranist, and Amtrak.

Shea Stadium: Accessible from either the 7 train of the subway as well as Shea Stadium on the Pt Washington Br of the LIRR, though it's only open on game days.

Yankee Stadium: Accessible from the B, D, and 4 trains, and the Melrose Station, served by Metro North RR on the Harlem Line, is only a few blocks east.

Keyspan Pk: Accesible by the nearby Stillwell Ave Terminal, which serves the D, F, N, and Q trains.

Richmond Co Ballpark: Accessible from its station off the SIRT, which leaves from St George on game days.

Aqueduct Racetrack: Accessible from the A train which has a special stop for game days otherwise at North Conduit Ave.

nyrmetros

May 21st, 2007, 04:47 AM

I drive to Yankee Stadium because I don't live near a subway.
I drive to Shea because I don't live near a subway.

It's an hour bus ride to get to the subway from my house. Yet I can drive to Shea in 10 minutes, and I can drive to Yankee Stadium in 45 minutes.

edsg25

June 19th, 2007, 05:27 PM

Which of the new (Camden Yards and beyond) baseball parks in US downtowns is best integrated into its surroundings based on:

• architecture

• lack of surface parking

• urban development in close proximity

There are many excellent examples: Camden Yards started the whole concept and its warehouse is outstanding, Coors Field was designed to blend in with the warehouse atmosphere of Denver's LoDo, PNP in Pittsburgh isn't in downtown but has a great view of it across the river and creates a warm, cozy urban atmosphere, Jacobs Field has helped refine downtown Cleveland, as has Comerica in Detroit....and on and on

but to me the most urban of all is AT&T in San Francisco. Its footprint is incredibly small due to China Basin in the outfield. Unlike the other new ball parks, it was privately financed so the Giants really were able to get the ballpark they wanted. Muni light rail runs on King St. in front of the park. Across King Street is dense commerical and residential buildings. Parking is not in sight...it is across the bridge on the other side of China Basin and makes no visual impact on the park.

AT&T looks like it has been sitting bayside forever. Take about going from worst (Candlestick) to arguably best (AT&T) in the same city!

edsg25

June 19th, 2007, 05:32 PM

sorry...Phoenix should have been included in the poll.

ADCS

June 19th, 2007, 08:35 PM

I'd say Pittsburgh, if only because it gives you a "feel" of being downtown that no other park does.

Benn

June 19th, 2007, 08:39 PM

With the best views of downtown, classy unique look, riverfront location, and good accessability I have got to go with PNC in Pittsburgh (and is my all around favorite park).

MRichR

June 19th, 2007, 10:18 PM

My vote will be for St. Louis, once the ballpark village gets built across the street, visible from the field.

AT&T is pretty nice, except they never show the acres and acres of empty parking lots right across McCovey cove.

eMKay

June 20th, 2007, 12:45 PM

I voted for St. Louis...Even though I think the renovation of Busch Stadium was excellent and didn't think they needed a new one.

rantanamo

June 20th, 2007, 01:48 PM

St Louis or San Diego it seems. Isn't PNC actually across the river from downtown Pitt and not urban at all?

Benn

June 20th, 2007, 05:33 PM

PNC is not directly in the downtown core, however the Roberto Clemente bridge does connect the park directly with downtown core. Its about as close to the central commercial district as any, and is certainly in town. The view of downtown Pittsburgh is phenomenal from most of the bowl, as great as San Diego and Baltimore (I think they are both wonderful) neither can boast views like PNC throughout the game. I don't know if I am the only on, but I really don't like the new Busch stadium at all. The old one was fine, probably the only well designed cookie-cutter, but it worked well. And the new one has nothing unique, cool or architectually significant about it, just Camden Yards version 10 (and not nearly as good looking as th original).

rantanamo

June 20th, 2007, 06:01 PM

so across bridge from downtown with a nice view = more integrated than actually downtown?

The question was integration. The new Busch's integration into the urban fabric > Old Busch.

http://www.skylinepictures.com/Smith_PNC_Park_p17_large.jpg

nomarandlee

June 20th, 2007, 06:58 PM

With the best views of downtown, classy unique look, riverfront location, and good accessability I have got to go with PNC in Pittsburgh (and is my all around favorite park).

I absolutley love PNC, it even trumps SF's new park by a hair (for the new era stadiums). The only thing I do mark off points for is that there does seem to be a good amount of surface lots around the park from what I can remember in photos.

And the only thing I knock SF's new park is that grandstands don't see as intimate as they could be, thogh its certainly within the normal range I think. PNC does this excellantly and something which I think puts Wrigley and Fenway above the most of the more modern parks.

algonquin

June 20th, 2007, 08:34 PM

Not American or a 'ballpark' per se, but a great example is the Skydome. It has almost no surface parking for cars (there's a small lot for buses), and it's entirely integrated with it's context. It's so close to other development, that units in nearby condo towers can see inside.

http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/120/skydome01sv1.jpg

http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/1562/skydome02hh6.jpg

MRichR

June 20th, 2007, 10:37 PM

I absolutley love PNC, it even trumps SF's new park by a hair (for the new era stadiums). The only thing I do mark off points for is that there does seem to be a good amount of surface lots around the park from what I can remember in photos.

Have you been to AT&T? I was there last year, and the other side of the cove is nothing but surface parking lots. Was pretty disappointing. Pull up the map on google, and you'll see what I mean.

http://www.newcondoinvestor.com/PIX/AattPark1.JPG
(this is about in the middle of the parking lot I believe)

hngcm

June 21st, 2007, 03:33 AM

how is PNC winning this poll?

its not even in downtown, if you want to downtown, you have to drive there..

while a lot of the other parks, you can take a short walk to a local bar and get something to eat or drink

Benn

June 21st, 2007, 04:45 AM

If you're in Pittsburgh you can park IN downtown (for fairly reasonable prices) spend a couple hours enjoying the city, maybe find something to eat, and the walk across the Clemente bridge and you are at the stadium (which is a great view from the opposite angle at the park as well as from the park). Its like the width of the river, you might as well be in downtown, its walking maybe three extra blocks. There is no need to drive to the ballpark directly, although alot of people seem to anyway. Okay maybe its not technically in downtown, and yes Camden Yards and Busch stadium are probably better integrated (I hate the design of the new Busch though), but its definately integrated via the bridge, if this doesn't make sense go there, see a game, it feels like a downtown park, and its just beautiful to boot. I guess if you want to say Camden yards is the best in terms of integration I can't argue much at all though.

rantanamo

June 21st, 2007, 07:47 AM

How is the surrounding of Jacobs Field. From pictures its seems to be well integrated as does Petco.

eMKay

June 21st, 2007, 04:26 PM

How about the stadium that started the retro ballpark trend? It's not a major league ballpark, but it was built to be easily expanded into one. Dunn Tire Park, Buffalo, NY. Built in 1988, Capacity ~20,000.

http://www.buffpics.com/dunnpark.jpg

http://www.skypic.com/newyork/1-7185.jpg

http://www.johnnyroadtrip.com/cities/buffalo/images/dunntirepark.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunn_Tire_Park

rantanamo

June 21st, 2007, 04:39 PM

if we're going minor league, there are a ton that integrate well with their smaller size.

rantanamo

June 21st, 2007, 05:36 PM

http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/local/images3/CAN03301b.jpg
http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/local/images3/CAN04869b.jpg

pretty sweet. I know they're a couple years old, but pretty nice

rantanamo

June 21st, 2007, 05:43 PM

Never been to AT&T, but apparently this is across the street, looking from inside the ballpark. Looks pretty nice

http://lostworld.pair.com/trips/giants_apr1/DSCN0044.JPG

http://www.parks.sfgov.org/images/sfgis/maps/pac-bell-park_spaceimaging.jpg

rantanamo

June 21st, 2007, 05:49 PM

Fenway

http://www.altrue.net/altruesite/files/ifhboston/Boston%20Fenway%20Park%20from%20Pru%20skywalk%201.jpg

Mr. Fusion

June 21st, 2007, 06:45 PM

Fenway

http://www.altrue.net/altruesite/files/ifhboston/Boston%20Fenway%20Park%20from%20Pru%20skywalk%201.jpg
I have to agree. These new ballparks take an architectural hint or two from surrounding structures but for the most part they were built to start a revitalization of a neighborhood or area, not to integrate.

:hug:

SDfan

June 21st, 2007, 07:16 PM

While I did vote for my own home city, it comes with good reason. San Diego's new ballpark is actually downtown and it has been woven into the urban fabric of the city extremely well. It was built to spur development and it did, and the only way it was able to do that was to be a part of the city and not just a stadium with a parking lot barrier. And I have pictures to prove this! (credit to bill cobb and sd-urban)

http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa313/SDfan13/cvxv07.jpg

http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa313/SDfan13/cvxv1.jpg

http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa313/SDfan13/cvxv.jpg

http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa313/SDfan13/cvxv02.jpg

http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa313/SDfan13/fgghfe.jpg

eMKay

June 21st, 2007, 10:22 PM

Maybe they should have put some thought into the exterior of Petco Park, it looks like a '60's era factory.

http://www.inetours.com/San_Diego/Images/Petco/PP-HarborDr_5607.jpg

Somnifor

June 21st, 2007, 10:58 PM

I have a feeling that when the new Twins stadium is finished it will be near the top of the list. In terms of architectural style and materials it fits with the other major buildings downtown, it looks to be very well connected at the street level and it will serve as the main commuter rail hub as the Twin Cities grow their rail transit system.

rantanamo

June 21st, 2007, 11:41 PM

Jacobs Field

http://www.griffith.ws/InFlightPhotos/Cleveland-2.jpg

Busch Stadium
http://www.kmov.com/stadiumcam/images/stadium_640.jpg

SDfan

June 22nd, 2007, 12:14 AM

Maybe they should have put some thought into the exterior of Petco Park, it looks like a '60's era factory.[/IMG]

Unlike every other park built since the 90's, Petco wasn't designed to look retro with brick being the staple building material/decor.

The sandstone tiles are ment to reflect the cliffs of La Jolla, the white steel the sails on the bay, and navy blue seats because of the naval stations. So the general design is local...or maybe it was made to look like a factory?

:|

algonquin

June 25th, 2007, 06:27 AM

San Diego's park looks awesome.

Somnifor

June 25th, 2007, 10:16 AM

I didn't see a thread about the new Twins stadium in Minneapolis so I thought I would start one. The official groundbreaking is August 2nd but site work has already begun.

The stadium is just one part of a bigger project. The stadium itself will seat 42,000 people. It will be on the edge of the Warehouse District which is the main nightlife district of the city.

At the same time the twin cities are starting to build a rail transit network, the second line opens next year, the third in 2012 or so. The main hub for the network will be built into the stadium site.

It is thought that these two amenities will make the area more attractive to live in so the Twinsville project will build a new neighborhood on the empty blocks northeast of the new stadium. Current plans are for a new street with condo towers, restaurants and bars on a tightly packed streetscape and a Minneapolis interpretation of the Spanish steps in Rome.

Stadium site:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/minneapolitan/Fromleftfield.jpg

http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/6949/twinssite01ib6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/9528/mntwinspark03oc0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://www.minnescraper.com/forum/files/3_195.jpg

http://www.minnescraper.com/forum/files/2_544.jpg

http://www.minnescraper.com/forum/files/1_148.jpg

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/9556/mntwinspark01ft8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/8772/mntwinspark02rc6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Twinsville project conceptual drawing:
http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/1103/twinsvilleconcept01gv1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

rantanamo

June 25th, 2007, 05:41 PM

There's one a few pages back. Just hadn't been updated in a while. The stadium I'm curious about is D.C.'s new stadium. Haven't seen a thread made for it at all.

Benn

June 25th, 2007, 08:52 PM

Which is really suprising since the DC ballpark will open in 9 months or so, there must be some good construction pics somewhere.

MasonsInquiries

June 26th, 2007, 01:26 AM

Twinsville project conceptual drawing:
http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/1103/twinsvilleconcept01gv1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

"twinsville". i like that!!:okay:

DennisRodman

June 26th, 2007, 01:30 AM

isnt there a viking stadium too ?

vahebaronian

June 26th, 2007, 01:30 AM

Looks good, beats the piece of S. they play in now.

Benn

June 26th, 2007, 03:34 AM

Yeah the dome isn't much for baseball, except in the playoffs (find anywhere else that hits 117 decibels). The twinsville idea was just an idea, although condo development not far from the site is possible, its got the parking structures for both the target center and the new ballpark where those are shown. That concept was drawn up before the site was determined. The big plus side is that it will be one of the most accessible ballparks in the country (with light rail, two freeways in very close proximity as well as major streets and connected to major parking structures). And I love the facade and the canopy, considering its HOK its very inventive. Just wish they had gone with a PNC like two tier bowl. open concourses are nice, but I would rather have a closer bowl (especially on such a small site) and a lower cost.

There may be new Vikings stadium, although the proposals from the ownership keeps getting more absurd, now their talking about it hitting a billion. Hennipen county (the city of Minneapolis and a few of the inner ring suburbs) is covering the vast majority of the cost of the new ballpark and a chunk of the new gophers stadium, so paying $750 million towards a stadium isn't exactly what we should do while laying off teachers and cutting down on transit work. The worst part about the deal was that Zigi was expecting to get the development rights around the stadium, worth a lot more than the $250 million the organization was going to put in, it was a hell of a reach around he was/is trying to get. Our dumbass governor also has a no new taxes motto (because he is in bed with the tax payers league), absolutely regardless of situation. Since Pawlenty came into office the schools, income, standard of life, you name it has gone down hill, the taxes have gone down to, but it wasn't worth it by any stretch of the imagination. If the vikings are willing to pay 40-50% , get a firm architectual plan in place and sign a 99 year lease, not a 30 year one this could happen very soon. If they keep asking for this absurd deal from a city and state already so heavily invested in stadium infrastructure it just won't happen.

palindrome

June 26th, 2007, 05:22 AM

What a imply perfect stadium for the twins!

krudmonk

June 29th, 2007, 07:45 AM

This is good news. The Metrodome is such a disaster for baseball, what with the turf and speakers and such. It's nice to know their future in the area is secure, too. It wasn't long ago when they were centered in the contraction debate.

chromebowler

July 4th, 2007, 04:12 AM

maybe it'll be worth moving back to Minny when that thing is done. hopefully its completion will be accompanied with a thousand-footer. that rendering really makes the multifoods tower look like an unimaginative brick of crap. they should put a pyramid on the top or something.

Goothrey

July 4th, 2007, 05:33 AM

I am sure those residential? buildings in the outfield will come with a pricey tag.

Benn

July 5th, 2007, 06:35 PM

There won't be any residential buildings, I don't know who did those conceptuals but they aren't by HOK, and were done a while back when a different site was being proposed. They are shown where the B ramp for the Target Center is, which is over a freeway and extending back onto the Target Center itself. The site is bordered by a freeway, two major streets, parking, the garbage processing center (behind it) and a light rail line, so the new urbanist ballpark village is not a possibility. There has been huge condo boom in Minneapolis (eveyrthing that could be turned into condos has), especially within and adjacent to downtown, but there won't be any directly adjacent to the ballpark.

Somnifor

July 6th, 2007, 09:06 AM

^^ Those conceptual drawings come from Hines Interests who have the development rights to the parking lots next to the stadium. They were done before the final stadium design was released. However in early June there was an article about their project in the Downtown Journal (not on line), and they say it is still on. They plan on building 2000 units and a new street. They seem to think that despite the weakness in the local condo market this is one of most desirable locations in the city with the rail lines and stadium so they will still be able to sell their condos. We will see. The highlights of the article:

• Traffic calming measures would be implemented on Interstate 94 entrance and exit ramps. Development would occur below the ramps and stretch up to the freeway viaducts.
• Dock Street would run below the viaducts, roughly parallel to 3rd Avenue, and would connect the ballpark to Washington
Avenue. “It feels like an old-town kind of street lined with bars and restaurants and shops,” (project architect) Graham said.
• Designers would create a Minneapolis interpretation of the Spanish steps of Rome, connecting a series of cascading stairs from the upper viaduct level to the lower street level. The stairway would be located in the triangular section shaped by the freeway viaducts, and would allow people to spill down to Dock Street below.
• An intermodal transit hub at the Northstar line would rise above Metro Transit’s current station plans. The structure would include an open, sky-lit canopy at 5th Street and 5th Avenue North.

japanese001

July 8th, 2007, 07:33 AM

The World Cup of American football is performed now in Japan.
【A meeting period】From 7 to 15 on July in 2007（Nine days）
Participation country
Sweden, Germany, France, Korea, Japan, U.S.A.,
http://wc2007.info/index_e.html

hYyOPOtxioQ

bizkit

July 9th, 2007, 01:54 AM

New Stadium Project: Poplar Point

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/2572/dcuuo4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

We have been working with the District for several years to forward our plan for a magnificent stadium/hotel complex anchoring a new neighborhood at Poplar Point. We think it's time for the Mayor to commit to getting this done in time for our stadium to be ready for the opening game of the 2010 season
http://dcunited.mlsnet.com/t103/stadium/poplar_point/

gallery:
http://www.mlsnet.com/gen/photogallery/mls/year_2007/month_06/day_29/cf102333.html

Benn

July 9th, 2007, 02:10 AM

Interesting, looks alot better than the original conceptuals, good look for the area and a nice development plan. Looks a good bit bigger than 27,000 seats though.

nomarandlee

July 9th, 2007, 02:19 AM

wow, that looks very nice. That would probably be the best new soccer specifec stadium in NA if built.

michał_

July 9th, 2007, 02:42 AM

Just as Nomarandlee sadid- looks like the best soccer-pecific stadium in USA. Will it take away the status of national from Home Depot Center then?

Benn

July 9th, 2007, 03:02 AM

Red Bull park might take the cake, and open up atleast 2 years sooner.

hoosier

July 9th, 2007, 03:26 AM

You are to blame

July 9th, 2007, 03:43 AM

NovaWolverine

July 9th, 2007, 03:52 AM

That is a nice proposal, but I doubt the city has the political capital or support to spend money for this development. It took a lot of hard work to get the Nationals stadium approved and built.

I doubt the city has the money, without raising taxes, to tear down and build a new Frederick Douglass Bridge.

The city has plenty of money, but they're not stupid. The city was pretty much getting hosed on the baseball stadium, they were right to fight for a better deal, albeit a still bad deal. It has long been said that this stadium will be financed privately. And there is a mixed-use development element to this poplar point development which helps. Frederick Douglass Bridge is a high priority and will be payed for publically though. The city is being managed very, very well financially right now, the baseball stadium was a more complex situation, though. The United stadium will be built.

3tmk

July 9th, 2007, 04:42 AM

Damn DC, they'll even get a better stadium than RB park :(
Oh well, I'm ditching RB anyway as soon as they bring the second team to NY
Maybe the Mets might give us a way cooler stadium

Dreamlıneя

July 9th, 2007, 05:15 AM

Looks very nice :okay:

hngcm

July 9th, 2007, 05:19 AM

wow very nice

is it built with expansion in mind?

SkyLerm

July 9th, 2007, 01:12 PM

Looks like a 40k seater...:sly:

Alle

July 9th, 2007, 06:45 PM

Thx for the link.

I have some questions about this. Sicne im not very much intro gridiron (but it is interesting).

First of all congratulations Japan, 48-0 against france :).

How often is this World Cup going to be played, every year, every fourth year? I hope its every fourth year or every second year so that it gets more interesting when its played.

Secondly, does the USA have all their starplayers with them?

Any photos of the stadiums?

rantanamo

July 9th, 2007, 08:46 PM

Secondly, does the USA have all their starplayers with them?

Not even close. They don't even have college star players, let alone professional. The US roster is completely filled with college players that ended their college careers last season and haven't been picked up or drafted by any of the professional leagues. And these players are from all divisions of college football. Looking at the roster, they'd be a lower tier team in Division I or upper tier team in Division II judgind by the level of talent. The US could possibly form 250 better teams than this. Probably more.

rantanamo

July 9th, 2007, 08:54 PM

not a huge soccer fan, but love the new stadium boom. Also glad to see the MLS doing well enough to garner nice new digs for each team.

Canadian Chocho

July 9th, 2007, 09:00 PM

Damn DC, they'll even get a better stadium than RB park :(
Oh well, I'm ditching RB anyway as soon as they bring the second team to NY
Maybe the Mets might give us a way cooler stadium

New York doesn't deserve a second team.

3tmk

July 9th, 2007, 09:07 PM

Yes we do
So far only New Jersey has a team ;)
I can bet you that it will be even more successful than the Metrobulls, if and only if they locate it within the city limits and near decent transport.
By the time RB park opens, I'm sure we'll have the plans for a new stadium
and the rivalry is what will really make both clubs take off

But for this thread, it must be said that Poplar point is far from being approved or officialized, this is still early schemes to persuade the District to finally give in the land it owns to the franchise to build their own stadium. I'm sure the final product will be different, although it kicks ass

nyrmetros

July 9th, 2007, 10:18 PM

New York doesn't deserve a second team.

You are right. NYC deserves its first MLS team.

GNU

July 9th, 2007, 10:25 PM

27.000?
It definitely looks way bigger on the renderings.
More like 35-40k

GNU

July 9th, 2007, 10:29 PM

hmm...

Germany beat Korea 32-2 yesterday

Canadian Chocho

July 9th, 2007, 11:11 PM

Ugh, American gridiron!

Canadian Chocho

July 9th, 2007, 11:15 PM

You are right. NYC deserves its first MLS team.

For fucks sake it's the same thing. Red Bull Park is supposed to be across the bridge from New York, it ain't that far. Look at RBNY attendance, absolute shite! Another club in New York would just be a waste of time and money.

I don't understand why you would build a 25 000+ seat stadium for a club whos highest attendance this year so far at home was 15 500, let alone form a new cub in the city.

PS. Here's and interesting fact: the largestt attendance this year for a game involving New York was in Toronto.

Toronto 'til I die!

Canadian Chocho

July 9th, 2007, 11:24 PM

Oh and on the subject of DCU's stadium. It's nice, too bad it's for a shit team like DCU. Luciano Emilio is the biggest wanker in MLS.

krudmonk

July 9th, 2007, 11:40 PM

DCU fans deserve a great stadium. New York metro doesn't deserve a second team.

krudmonk

July 9th, 2007, 11:42 PM

This is a joke. NFL will always be king here, but why does American football have to be sold abroad?

3tmk

July 10th, 2007, 12:11 AM

For fucks sake it's the same thing. Red Bull Park is supposed to be across the bridge from New York, it ain't that far. Look at RBNY attendance, absolute shite! Another club in New York would just be a waste of time and money.

I don't understand why you would build a 25 000+ seat stadium for a club whos highest attendance this year so far at home was 15 500, let alone form a new cub in the city.

PS. Here's and interesting fact: the largestt attendance this year for a game involving New York was in Toronto.

Toronto 'til I die!
I don't think you know what you are talking about, so let me lecture you

The Metrobulls play in GIANTS Stadium, which is in the meadowlands in New Jersey. The only way to get there is through the tunnel with a car, or getting a bus from the Port Authority, which obviously sucks. Unless if you carpool or own a car, it's hell to get there, and even if you love the team (which I don't), you have to deal with Giants stadium which is in horrible state, and they play on artificial turf, which is a joke.

Now, you talk about the Red Bull Park. I have to say that stadium is going to shit over anything else built so far by the MLS. But that stadium is still in construction. In fact it's been delayed because, surprise surprise, the ground pollution was greater than expected (cough New Jersey cough). Still, it is in a nice location, in Harrison, a bridge away from Newark, the area is in major rejuvenation, and what's more, it is served by PATH, so even if it is a bit further from the city than the meadowlands, people can get there by rail, even from the city, they just get a ride on the train, and the stadium will be in an urban environment, instead of the sprawling parking desert that is the meadowlands.

The problem is, it won't be completed until 2009.
Until then, the club still plays at Giants Stadium, and after 12 years of crap, they finally started playing well. It's no wonder people aren't willing to get through the trouble of going to the GS, despite the club's current good form. Also many people (like me), dislike Red Bull owning the franchise, so until I get a second team, I'm stuck with them, and I won't let a poser like you talk bullshit without putting you back in your place.
Because I can assure you, a second team will be nothing but a success, and I bet that the Metrobulls will ride on its coattails

Oh, and I remember Angel shitting all over your stadium of seagulls :okay:
:cheers:

carlspannoosh

July 10th, 2007, 12:57 AM

Stadia?Sports arenas? Just a thought. Nevermind.

Benn

July 10th, 2007, 01:44 AM

Not to say that the New York area won't deserve another team eventually, but there are alot of cities that deserve to get one before New York gets a second. The MLS would be better served by putting a team in the following areas:
Vancouver
Phoenix
Milwaukee
Montreal
Bay Area
Philly
Twin Cities
Portland
And maybe try Florida again, although they have had a terrible track record with pro soccer

Maybe eventually a second to new York, but not until some deserving cities get A team.

Canadian Chocho

July 10th, 2007, 02:04 AM

Oh, and I remember Angel shitting all over your stadium of seagulls :okay:
:cheers:

2-1???? Big fucken deal, just wait 'til our next meeting (Aug 12th I believe), Toronto will "shit" all over you like we did against Dallas.

sapmi

July 10th, 2007, 03:31 PM

I love it! Let's hope they'll build it! :banana:

Nameless

July 25th, 2007, 01:44 AM

I voted San Diego but the poll should have included Phoenix.

hngcm

July 26th, 2007, 05:21 AM

I voted San Diego but the poll should have included Phoenix.

does phoenix even have a downtown?

i kid i kid:nuts:

rantanamo

July 26th, 2007, 06:45 AM

After watching All-Star weekend, I have to say San Francisco. Their ballpark fits perfectly into the grid unlike most and doesn't dominate its surroundings at all.

Jim856796

July 26th, 2007, 08:14 AM

Aloha Stadium is located in Honolulu, Hawaii. It is home to the University of Hawaii Warriors football team and has hosted the NFL Pro Bowl since 1980. It was born on September 12, 1975. The stadium had 4 movable sections, each weighing 3,500,000 pounds and having a capacity of 7000, which could transform the stadium into a diamond configuration for baseball and soccer, a oval for football, or a triangle for concerts (I have not seen the Aloha Stadium in this configuration), by way of air cushions. Effective January 2007, the stadium was permanently locked into its football configuration, citingcost and maintenance issues. State of Hawaii lawmakers are concerned about the physical condition of the stadium. There have been several issues regarding rusting of the facility, several hundred seats that need to be replaced, and restroom facilities that need to be expanded to accommodate more patrons.

It will cost $300,000,000 to build a completely new facility or $216,000,000 to extend the life of Aloha Stadium for another 20-30 years. If immediate repairs are not made witin the next several years, then the stadium may have to pass away due to safety concerns.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bc/ChinaTrip2005-298.jpg

Which option do you prefer, A new facility or renovations to Aloha Stadium?

Durbsboi

July 26th, 2007, 10:08 AM

shit, thats a BIG stadium for Hawaii

Kobo

July 26th, 2007, 11:24 AM

According to worldstadiums.com it has a 50,000 capacity, although it does look a lot larger from pictures. Well I don't see why they shouldn't spend the money on revamping it. Any idea of what the stadium that could replace it would look like and its size?

GNU

July 26th, 2007, 02:40 PM

yep, thats quite big for Hawaii.

Jim856796

July 26th, 2007, 02:58 PM

I should have recommended a circular stadium capable of hosting football and baseball events with no movable stands required.

austrian

July 26th, 2007, 03:27 PM

not bad... wondering if someone may post pics of it when its empty...?

EADGBE

July 26th, 2007, 03:29 PM

I've seen the 50k figure and thought it was way too low. It seems that, like Concorde, stadiums with moving parts to allow different field configurations are possible but just too damned expensive to be workable. The old Mile High Stadium in Denver went the same way.

Perhaps, given the population and location of Hawaii, there maybe isn't the same resource available to do what Denver did and replace it with an Invesco and a Coors Field. If both sports need to be contained in one ground, the best modern example I can think of is Oakland's McAffee stadium.

http://www.turbosound.com/sites/artsites/oakland2.jpg

Of course, Candlestick Park, RFK, Shea and Qualcomm are all older examples. Where there are movable sections, they are (as far as I know) moved manually not mechanically. If you must go with multi-use, perhaps that's the best way...

Mr. Fusion

July 26th, 2007, 05:23 PM

Build a new one! :yes:

Xelebes

July 27th, 2007, 04:06 AM

Oops, sorry guys. Deleted article. Not enough info right now to actually warrant a thread. If there is anything beyond speculation and actually concrete, I'll post. Until then, eh, let this thread go.

Here's the article anyways. (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=503444)

Jim856796

July 27th, 2007, 04:03 PM

So, should the Aloha stadium be demolished or should it life be extended?

Bori427

July 27th, 2007, 04:16 PM

The Aloha Stadium is located in Aiea,Hawaii..not Honolulu.

I say build a new one,don't waste money revamping this.

NeilF

July 27th, 2007, 04:22 PM

Given the amount that would need to be spent to restore it, it seems building a new one would be the more logical choice. That said, would it be built on the same site, and involve demolishing the current stadium or would it be built elsewhere? Would the stadium be put out of action for the revamp? Is there somewhere else for the teams that use it to play? How long would the new stadium take to build, versus how long would it take to revamp it? Objectively, I'd say that a new stadium should be built, but I say that in full ignorance of non-monetary facts.

Bigmac1212

July 27th, 2007, 07:53 PM

Considering that the Oilers play in one of the oldest arenas in the league, it's about time they consider getting a new arena. (If they do, I hope that they keep the press box placed behind the bench, like how Rexall Place has it currently.)

Xelebes

July 28th, 2007, 12:21 AM

There's been talk of a new downtown arena since the beginning of the season. Would you like to see the article. I suppose I could link it to the post on the prairie forum.

swerve3030

July 28th, 2007, 11:43 AM

I would hate to see Aloha stadium go. I used to live in Aiea; down the street from Aloha. I remember hearing a Gloria Estefan concert from my apartment. Keep the stadium and renovate. I can't think of any other place to build a new stadium.

matherto

July 28th, 2007, 04:00 PM

San Diego's looks very well integrated into the Downtown area, and from the pictures I've seen of the future developments around the site, with more and more 'scrapers all around, it'll be excellent I think.

Having never been to SD, what's the city like?

eMKay

July 29th, 2007, 05:35 AM

I didn't know it can move.

mhays

July 29th, 2007, 07:04 AM

Maybe they should have put some thought into the exterior of Petco Park, it looks like a '60's era factory.

http://www.inetours.com/San_Diego/Images/Petco/PP-HarborDr_5607.jpg

Wow, that's hideous.

SD, I read your justification, but it just doesn't translate aesthetically.

Benn

July 29th, 2007, 07:21 AM

Yeah its definitely the coolest multipurpose stadium in the way it functions. Good football stadium, the sightlines for baseball aren't great, but having half of the stadium move that far is impressive by any standard. Never figured out why but I do like the look an awful lot. Kind of hate to see it go just because of the uniqueness, but in the end a new one might be the right call.

pompeyfan

July 29th, 2007, 07:36 AM

Benn

July 29th, 2007, 08:25 AM

Retractable stands aren't expensive. Neither with retractable roofs.

Anyway, for that cost, they'd be better off building a new stadium.

If $120-$412 million isn't expensive, then yes retractable roofs aren't expensive:lol:

icracked

July 29th, 2007, 08:43 AM

The Aloha Stadium is located in Aiea,Hawaii..not Honolulu.

I say build a new one,don't waste money revamping this.No, its located in Honolulu; Aiea is a section in Honolulu.

The Stadium's main page http://alohastadium.hawaii.gov/about

My favorite picture of the stadium.....I think they should built a new one, only much bigger.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/35/103698664_15806c45dc_o.jpg

pompeyfan

July 29th, 2007, 09:39 AM

If $120-$412 million isn't expensive, then yes retractable roofs aren't expensive:lol:

Millenium Stadium was built with a retractable roof, and the total cost was $126 million. That is cheap for a 75000 seat stadium.

Uni of Phoenix Stadium has a moving pitch and a retractable roof. it cost $455 million, and is one of the best stadiums in North America.

Telstra Dome has retractable roof and retractable seating, and cost $250 million

Gillette Stadium has nothing and cost $325 million.

Cleveland's stadium has nothing and cost $283 million

Qwest Field has nothing and cost $360 million.

How is that more expensive?

hngcm

July 29th, 2007, 10:08 AM

I find it beautiful thank you very much.

*crosses arms*

Kobo

July 29th, 2007, 10:19 AM

Cleveland Indians Jacobs Field, capacity 43,068. Built 1994.

When I have been to Jacobs field it was a fantastic place to go to and we have never had a problem parking. Infact all of Clevelands sport complexs are down town which is great.

http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Mike-Smith/Cleveland---First-Indians-Game-at-Jacobs-Field-Print-C10041936.jpeg

http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/american/jacobs01.jpg

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/north_america/united_states/ohio/cleveland_jacobs1.jpg

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/north_america/united_states/ohio/cleveland_jacobs2.jpg

EADGBE

July 29th, 2007, 11:20 AM

Beacause anything can be made more expensive in other ways - look at Wembley.

Besides, I'm talking about the cost of each stand move, not the build cost. Builds are funded like mortgages - over a long term. The cost of operating a stand move are up front - every time you move it. We could be talking about a figure of US$20,000 each time here.

You can't possibly tell me that there is not a significant additional cost to the operation as well as the design of a moveable stand. The comparison is against what it would otherwise have cost, not just a spurious list of other stadia which are know to have cost more.

I mentioned two examples where moveable stands were designed and then the practice abandoned. Thanks for reminding me of a third. I understand there is a strong debate about keeping the Telstra Dome permanently configured for AFL/Cricket, due to the cost and marginal nature of other sports in Victoria.

If Melbourne, the self-appointed 'World's capital of sport' can't make it pay, who the hell else can?

Somnifor

July 30th, 2007, 01:15 AM

Here are some more renderings from the thread in the Midwest development subforum:

http://www.twinsballpark2010.com/_resources/P6010135a_north_small.jpg

http://www.twinsballpark2010.com/_resources/elev_5th_color.jpg

http://www.twinsballpark2010.com/_resources/elev_5th_bw.jpg

http://www.twinsballpark2010.com/_resources/elev_7th_bw.jpg

http://www.twinsballpark2010.com/_resources/elev_prom_bw.jpg

The homeplate entrance
http://www.twinsballpark2010.com/_resources/P6010105a_model_plateentrance.jpg

A model of the interaction of the stadium and the Northstar line commuter rail station (the oval)
http://www.twinsballpark2010.com/_resources/P6010108a_northstar.jpg

Johnny Drama

July 30th, 2007, 01:29 AM

I love the exterior of the stadium. Ill have to visit for interleauge play.

Johnny Drama

July 30th, 2007, 01:31 AM

All of these stadiums are great. No other sport can boast such incredible stadiums.

Pronaos

July 30th, 2007, 05:12 AM

I like the facade as well minus the little slot windows. Random windows don't look good.

http://www.mitchglaser.com/journal/uploaded_images/caltrans-763905.jpg

http://www.uc.edu/virtualtour/images/ld/campus_spring06029.jpg

http://www.minnescraper.com/forum/files/1_148.jpg

Windows need organization, not anarchy.

Benn

July 30th, 2007, 05:49 AM

Very cool to see the other side of the park, and the schematics. in the schematics the facades make it look almost like Antoine Predock was involved.

eMKay

July 31st, 2007, 03:59 AM

Why are we talking about retractable roofs in a thread about a stadium in Hawaii? Anyone here ever been there? (other than the two that live there) The weather is perfect 99% of the time.

pompeyfan

July 31st, 2007, 07:20 AM

Why are we talking about retractable roofs in a thread about a stadium in Hawaii? Anyone here ever been there? (other than the two that live there) The weather is perfect 99% of the time.

It started out with a talk about retractable seating.

Bobby3

July 31st, 2007, 10:23 AM

It's more expensive to built in Hawaii because you have to ship in most of the materials by sea (not to mention real estate prices).

I think Aloha should be torn down and a new stadium built in it's place. I heard UofH wants a 60,000-seater but I think that's insane. Yes, lots of Division I-A (or whatever they're calling it now) programs have big stadiums but don't the Warriors average around 39,000?

I think a new 50,000-seater with a wider field (so it could take in more revenue from soccer and rugby) would be perfect.

EADGBE

July 31st, 2007, 02:29 PM

I've been hearing about this in other places, but not on here. A quick search on SSC showed nothing, so I think it's high time we had a thread on it.

Anyone know what the capacity will be? From the picture it looks smaller than the current 80k. To many, that seems a ridiculous proposition. Why pay $1.2bn to accommodate fewer fans?

by Matthew Futterman
Tuesday July 24, 2007, 5:13 PM

The Jets and Giants said today they don't want a roof on their new stadium in the Meadowlands no matter how much it costs.

http://www.nj.com/hp/332/0724stadium.jpg

The comments came after the state released a report that showed putting a roof on the $1.2 billion stadium would cost another $421 million. From the start, the teams have resisted enclosing the stadium. They've said a roof would cost too much and would eliminate the home-field advantage in cold weather. Still, the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority wanted a formal accounting of the project.

Alice McGillion, a spokesman for the Meadowlands stadium venture, said today the Jets and Giants are committed to an open air facility.

"There is no change in the original plan because of this report," McGillion said. "This is something the NJSEA wanted. We had determined that this was not economically feasible."

The new stadium is scheduled to open in 2010.

EADGBE

July 31st, 2007, 02:54 PM

Here's what's on Wikipedia:

New Meadowlands Stadium
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New Meadowlands Stadium

Location 50 State Highway 120
East Rutherford, New Jersey 07073
Broke ground TBA
Opened 2010 (scheduled)
Owner New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority
Operator New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority
Surface FieldTurf
Architect Skanska AB
360 Architecture
Tenants
New York Giants (NFL) (2010-)
New York Jets (NFL) (2010-)
Capacity
84,000

New Meadowlands Stadium is a planned football stadium. It will replace Giants Stadium in the parking lot of the current structure at the Meadowlands Sports Complex. As with the current stadium, both the New York Giants and New York Jets will play their home games there. However, unlike Giants Stadium, the new stadium will be a 50/50 partnership between both NFL teams. The stadium will be administered by the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority, which also operates the current stadium (and owned it until selling it to the Giants as part of the stadium plan).

Capacity

The new stadium will have seating for 84,000 fans, including 10,000 club seats and approximately 200 luxury suites. It will thus be the second or third-largest stadium in the NFL, after FedExField outside Washington D.C., currently the largest stadium in the league with a capacity of 91,704, and the New Cowboys Stadium outside Dallas, Texas, which plans to have a capacity of 80,000 expandable to 100,000 with additional end zone seating.

Retractable roof possibility

Although the stadium plans currently do not include a retractable roof, the stadium might be designed to incorporate a roof in the future, should a source of financing be found other than the Giants and Jets paying out of their own pockets. As with Citi Field and New Yankee Stadium, the rising cost estimates have made roof-construction less feasible than it might have been in earlier years. The inclusion of a roof has been stressed by local officials, as it is considered a crucial factor in potentially hosting the Super Bowl and NCAA Final Four. Regardless, the stadium will likely be part of the U.S. bid to host the 2018 FIFA World Cup, as the stadium will be larger than Red Bull Park, the soccer-specific venue expected to open in 2008.

Naming rights

Naming rights will be sold, partially so the stadium is not named after one particular team or either team's legendary owners of the past. The deal is widely expected to set a record for an American sports venue.

Partnership

The partnership came together after the Jets' plan for a new stadium in Manhattan fell apart. Before the Jets came aboard, the Giants were working with New Jersey to build a stadium of their own. Preliminary sketches of the stadium were revealed, but were scrapped once the Jets came aboard so that both teams would approve and share ownership of the final plan.

The Giants will maintain their practice facilities and offices in and near the stadium (as they currently do), while the Jets will move their facilities from Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York, to Florham Park, New Jersey.

Financing

On December 7, 2006, the NFL owners voted to approve loaning the Giants and Jets $300 million to help build the new stadium (teams cannot receive more than $150 million, but this stadium will host two teams). The stadium is expected to be started on in the spring of 2007 and be finished in time for the 2010 NFL season. Normally, these loans are repaid through club seat revenue that would otherwise be given to the visiting team as part of the NFL's revenue-sharing plan.

Lease terms

The lease for the new stadium is for 25 years, with options to extend it that could eventually reach 97 years. After the 15th year of the lease, every five years, one of the two teams can opt out of the lease, giving the state 12 months notice. However, if one team leaves for a new stadium, the other team would have to remain for the remainder of the lease.[3] Based on the teams' histories, this clause presumably allows the Jets to eventually decide that they want to play in their own stadium and can find a way to finance it, although the relocation of team facilities to New Jersey makes this less likely to happen. It is unknown if the lease starts upon construction or upon the stadium's opening. The teams also get parking revenue from the Meadowlands' western parking lots year round, even when there are no events at the stadium (this would occur when other parts of the Meadowlands host events)

The Jets and Giants will jointly own the new stadium, not lease like it does at the existing stadium.

Transportation

A rail spur will be constructed by New Jersey Transit from the Pascack Valley Line to provide rail service to Hoboken Terminal and to Pennsylvania Station via the Secaucus Junction.

rantanamo

July 31st, 2007, 07:15 PM

Benn

July 31st, 2007, 08:10 PM

The design is changing quite a bit from my understanding. 360 Architecture is currently handling conceptual work as far as I understand, and have yet to release renderings of the actual design. Those ones are early, very basic conceptuals. 80,000 is the number I've hard for the capacity. They were talking about a retractable roof costing $412 million, which is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. And it wouldn't even include climate control, just the roof. Neither team will pay a dime towards a roof, since it doesn't directly benefit them. They should probably just do a partial roof over the upper level if they add one at all. The NFL will also be putting $300 million towards the project, which will help. If each team puts in $300 million, and $300 or so for naming rights would cover the financing, so its doable with out much in other sources. Maybe they can talk FIFA into getting away with out a roof?

nomarandlee

August 1st, 2007, 05:44 AM

ChiLooper

August 1st, 2007, 10:21 AM

Looks pretty nice. I'm glad they're not putting a roof on it.

Bigmac1212

August 1st, 2007, 11:01 AM

It reminds me of the current Soldier Field in Chicago, minus the quirky and bizzare angles.

EADGBE

August 1st, 2007, 12:06 PM

Stadium looks cheap and I'm guessing most of that cost is land price. I think they'd be crazy not to look for other funding sources to get more events. They'll end up having to add a roof anyway if they want to be in the World Cup bid. Someone should probably inform them of that.

Rantanamo, you surprise me. I'd have said that the only justification of a roof at New GS is the possibility it brings to host a Superbowl. Surely, that's by far and away the biggest currency in the US sports venue industry.

I'm not even sure FIFA could really give a damn whether there's a roof or not. The current Giants was good enough for them in '94 and the final that year was at the Rose Bowl. Have they added a stipulation for venues with roofs since then? I must be honest, I'm struggling to think of an 'open' WC venue since Marseille in 1998 - and the Germans did spend €240m putting a roof on the Berlin Olympiastadion. Even so, I'd it's a lot of money for a much longer shot than the chance to host a SB.

At 84,000, it's only a 5% increase in capacity. There must be other reasons to justify the expense. Presumably, it's all about keeping up with the Joneses (as in Jerry) for things like inside amenities, spectator comfort, jumbo screens and such like. Even though the capacity is currently pretty big, would you say that GS is starting to show its age in the level of amenity it can provide?

MoreOrLess

August 1st, 2007, 12:28 PM

At 84,000, it's only a 5% increase in capacity. There must be other reasons to justify the expense. Presumably, it's all about keeping up with the Joneses (as in Jerry) for things like inside amenities, spectator comfort, jumbo screens and such like. Even though the capacity is currently pretty big, would you say that GS is starting to show its age in the level of amenity it can provide?

Alot of the current NFL stadiums havent increased capacity much or have actually decreased(Ford Field replacing the Silverdome for example). The main drive behind pretty much every big stadium devolpment these days seems to be corperate facilties, doesnt something like 40-50% of the Emirates Stadium income come from around 10-15% of the capacity?

nomarandlee

August 1st, 2007, 03:47 PM

It reminds me of the current Soldier Field in Chicago, minus the quirky and bizzare angles.

I'm not really seeing the resemblance. To me it looks remarkably similar to the current Giants stadium at least on the inside.

rantanamo

August 1st, 2007, 06:57 PM

Rantanamo, you surprise me. I'd have said that the only justification of a roof at New GS is the possibility it brings to host a Superbowl. Surely, that's by far and away the biggest currency in the US sports venue industry.

Well

I'm not even sure FIFA could really give a damn whether there's a roof or not. The current Giants was good enough for them in '94 and the final that year was at the Rose Bowl. Have they added a stipulation for venues with roofs since then? I must be honest, I'm struggling to think of an 'open' WC venue since Marseille in 1998 - and the Germans did spend €240m putting a roof on the Berlin Olympiastadion. Even so, I'd it's a lot of money for a much longer shot than the chance to host a SB.

At 84,000, it's only a 5% increase in capacity. There must be other reasons to justify the expense. Presumably, it's all about keeping up with the Joneses (as in Jerry) for things like inside amenities, spectator comfort, jumbo screens and such like. Even though the capacity is currently pretty big, would you say that GS is starting to show its age in the level of amenity it can provide?

- the expense is likely a function of the expensive land prices in the NY metro. Contrast that to the steal Jerry got his land for, which was likely less than $50 million total after booting those people out of their homes.

- FIFA doesn't have requirements, but rather suggestions. Since 2002 its been suggested to have a certain percentage of spectators covered. They state they would like all games played 100% under cover when possible. We're talking about NYC in the wealthiest country in the world. I'd imagine they'd realy want a roof.

- Besides WC I would think they'd need a roof for the Super Bowl and for sure for a Final Four. Its interesting they were willing to spend less and wanted more things out of the venue when it was just a Jets stadium in Manhattan. The Giants just wanted a newer Giants Stadium. Now that they're back together, looks like the Giants are running the show again.

- I'm guessing the Soldier Field remark is different architecture outside, tall bowl on one side with what looks like a wall of suites on the other.

I'm sorry, but when that thing opens it simply needs to be better than that. Pathetic for a place like NY.

Bigmac1212

August 1st, 2007, 08:08 PM

I'm not really seeing the resemblance. To me it looks remarkably similar to the current Giants stadium at least on the inside.

It's hard to see, but the obsured side has all the club seats and luxury suites/boxes.

Benn

August 1st, 2007, 11:09 PM

I still want to know what kind of roof costs $421 million. The retractable roof the proposed vikings stadium is in the $200 million range and its not opening any sooner. If thats really what the design they have costs, maybe they should hire a different architect.

Johnny Drama

August 2nd, 2007, 02:14 AM

garbage. The Jets need to move into Manhattan. That old stadium proposal for the 2012 Olympics was incredible.

VelesHomais

August 2nd, 2007, 02:28 AM

Ridiculous cost and without a roof? These are not the 1970's

I still want to know what kind of roof costs $421 million. The retractable roof the proposed vikings stadium is in the $200 million range and its not opening any sooner. If thats really what the design they have costs, maybe they should hire a different architect.

It must be a golden roof that flies away using antigravitational mechanisms.

nyrmetros

August 2nd, 2007, 06:30 AM

garbage. The Jets need to move into Manhattan. That old stadium proposal for the 2012 Olympics was incredible.

no it wasn't. It was a poorly laid out plan from the mayors crack pipe. Not that I am suggesting that the former mayor of DC is now running NYC, but the west side stadium plan was piss poor at best.

rantanamo

August 2nd, 2007, 09:07 AM

The Manhattan stadium itself was incredible. Don't know about the plan as a whole. I'd rather see that than this garbage and I hate the Giants.

EADGBE

August 2nd, 2007, 10:56 AM

Didn't the NYJ project all get mired in controversy when the people behind Madison Square Garden bought up some of the land (currently a railway siding?) at an inflated price to keep the Jets (and a nice new Manhattan venue) out?

As I understood it, the only way to force them to sell was for NYC to get the 2012 Olympics and enforce a compulsory purchase.

I suppose the threat of competition can lead to some pretty desperate measures...

August 3rd, 2007, 04:45 PM

That small render up top certaily doesn't look all that impressive. It is amazing what building a stadium even in NJ will cost.

I hope they find a way to put a retractable on it. It makes sense to have NYC be in the Super Bowl and Final Four rotation.

You do realise East Rutherford is located in Northern Jersey, right?
More precisely, Bergen County, the richest county in the State and also part of the New York Metropolitan area.;)

nyrmetros

August 3rd, 2007, 05:09 PM

the superbowl is over rated. say no to a full roof, say yes to a roof over the stands...

Kuwaiti

August 3rd, 2007, 08:48 PM

whoever spoke about FIFA - you dont need a roof

fifa's requirements for world cup bidders is that their stadium can hold a soccer field under the field dimensions which they require.

if the NFL stadium can fit a soccer field into it, then its alright. if it cant fit a soccer field into it (maybe the dimensions of the nfl stadium are too small) then there IS a problem and the stadium cannot host games. having a roof aint so necessary.

VelesHomais

August 3rd, 2007, 09:36 PM

But it looks cheap and old without the roof

Kuwaiti

August 3rd, 2007, 11:42 PM

^thats how it should be because giants and jets are cheap and old teams :P

just kidding lol

rantanamo

August 4th, 2007, 05:55 AM

FIFA doesn't require roofs but they suggest them when possible. This is a possible situation.

nomarandlee

August 5th, 2007, 01:36 PM

You do realise East Rutherford is located in Northern Jersey, right?
More precisely, Bergen County, the richest county in the State and also part of the New York Metropolitan area.;)

Yea, but I got the impression that it was located in a pretty suburban middle class area from what I can remember when we stayed in Secaucus.. I can't remember what the Manhattan proposal was going to cost but I don't remember it as something a lot more then this one which I would think it would be in comparison.

urbanpreppie05

August 5th, 2007, 05:42 PM

Slated Opening: September 12, 2009.
Cost: 55 Million, not tax supported or Tuition based
For: The University of Akron, Akron, OH (23,000 Students)

History: The Akron Zips football team (2005 MAC Champs) have played in the historic yet dilapidated Rubber Bowl since the 1930's. And in the last 20 years, the stadium has fallen in such disrepair, that parts of the 35,000 seat stadium have tarps over it because the seats are unsafe. To Fix the stadium would cost $66 million dollars.
Did I mention its about 8 miles off campus?
This is probably the possibly the second largest project in the school's history- second only to the Landscape for Learning project, where the school closed two streets and converted them to green space, and built a new Student Union, Classroom Building, Rec Center and Field House, parking deck and 2 residence halls.
The project is so big that it's not without some controversy...the University bought the Quaker Square Crowne Plaza Hotel center to house the students to be displaced for the stadium. They did this without the mayor knowing, and he's upset that the University will be closing one of downtown's 2 hotels. (he fails to acknowledge that the downtown hotel market has been VERY soft for years, but that's another story). As a concession, when the University takes the hotel over at the end of the year, they will only be closing half of it until 2009. The University also transferred land to the city so someone would be able to build a new hotel downtown. (And apparently, there have been offers)
Another controversy is that some businesses/homes will have to be relocated. 2 holdouts are Manny's Pub/Aroma Coffee (he owns them both) who has stated he wants to be a part of the new project, and The Odd Corner, a cannabis shop who doesnt want to move. Because this is an educational development (there are also classrooms and residence halls on the site) eminent domain proceedings may be used. Hopefully, they'll be able to sort it all out before it comes to that.
In general though, the project has been met with excitement and will likely increase enrollment in the coming years.
Anyway, here it is!

http://www.uakron.edu/stadium/images/StadiumSuiteLobby.jpg
http://www.uakron.edu/stadium/images/StadiumSouthWestCorner.jpg
http://www.uakron.edu/stadium/images/StadiumPressTower.jpg
http://www.uakron.edu/stadium/images/StadiumNorthWestConcourse.jpg
http://www.uakron.edu/stadium/images/StadiumLogeSeatsClubLevel.jpg
http://www.uakron.edu/stadium/images/StadiumClubLevelLobby.jpg
http://www.uakron.edu/stadium/images/StadiumAerial.jpg

Jim856796

August 5th, 2007, 08:41 PM

Good. I hope the old Rubber Bowl gets redeveloped somehow.

August 5th, 2007, 10:32 PM

The stadium is built in the large Medowlands Complex that's spread in an area that used to be swamp land. It's accessible to Route 3 which is one of the major highways that links New Jersey with New York. There are no suburban areas nearby.

Bigmac1212

August 6th, 2007, 02:02 AM

It's nice.

Now we need Kent State and Toledo to get some new facilities.

pompeyfan

August 6th, 2007, 07:12 AM

looks a lot like DKR

Goothrey

August 6th, 2007, 05:34 PM

Yeah, I can see how it looks like DKR with that second deck, however, on a much smaller scale.

th0m

August 7th, 2007, 08:57 AM

Very nice. So where's all this money coming from, then?

urbanpreppie05

August 8th, 2007, 06:44 PM

Very nice. So where's all this money coming from, then?

Donations, naming rights, tickets sales, etc. Not student funds or tax dollars.

Bobby3

August 9th, 2007, 04:33 AM

What is the plan for the Rubber Bowl? Getting torn down?

gct13

August 22nd, 2007, 10:54 PM

Bump.

The 2007 season is a few weeks away and the new North End Zone is ready:

http://www.illinoisloyalty.com/i/20070814/memorial-stadium-illinois-8041.jpg

http://www.illinoisloyalty.com/i/20070814/memorial-stadium-illinois-8026.jpg

The new suites / press area on the west side will be completed for the 2008 season-

http://www.illinoisloyalty.com/i/20070814/memorial-stadium-illinois-8030.jpg

More Memorial Stadium renovations photos >>>> (http://www.illinoisloyalty.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=2581)

Goothrey

August 23rd, 2007, 06:03 PM

This is great for Illinios. My cousin is a senior there.

th0m

August 23rd, 2007, 06:14 PM

The Endzone structure seems to go down farther than it shows on the pictures, is it totally done yet? Also, I'm assuming they're losing capacity from biting such a large chunk out of that upperdek for the - sweet looking, might I add - luxury boxes, or at least until they, as they put it, 'revamp' the horseshoe which apparently isn't part of the original expansion/renovation plan. All in all, it should be a sweet place to be at, that West (and East) facade reminds me of Soldier Field.

Benn

August 23rd, 2007, 10:55 PM

Yeah, its dropping down to around 60,000 seats, they weren't selling out the stadium regularly, so the suites, club seats and reduced capacity seems to make some sense.
About the Northwestern comments, its the smallest school in the big ten, and has always been an academics first kind of school. They don't fill up either venue dependably, and although both are old the school has more important things to spend money on than expansions to the stadium or a new arena. Last year visiting Big Ten teams often had more fans at Northwestern games than Northwestern did.

th0m

August 23rd, 2007, 11:14 PM

Getting beat by New Hampshire in your own stadium (after you paid them a nice guarantee, nonetheless) doesn't help either. But of course there are countless more examples for that scenario (Colorado, Miss. State, Duke, Rutgers to name a few).

Pronaos

August 27th, 2007, 01:23 AM

The new suites / press area on the west side will be completed for the 2008 season-

http://www.illinoisloyalty.com/i/20070814/memorial-stadium-illinois-8030.jpg

What are they going to do about the upper deck for this season?

gct13

August 27th, 2007, 01:56 AM

Capacity was 69k before the renovations began, capacity for the 2007 season while construction is still going on will be 57k, and capacity when it's all said and done in 2008 will be around 65k.

The upper deck on the side where the cranes are in that pic will be closed to spectators in 2007, they'll continue to work on adding the suites / new press area.

th0m

August 27th, 2007, 11:22 AM

Are they going to remove the columns that obscure the view for some spectators on the lower deck?

The reduced capacity shouldn't pose problems either, since they drew an average of 43k over 7 games last year.

Benn

August 28th, 2007, 06:59 PM

On the west side there won't be any obstructed views, but alot of seats are/have been removed for the suites/club seats. As far as I know the east side will not be changed.

Jim856796

September 3rd, 2007, 12:14 AM

So which do you prefer: Dual stadium complex (separate facilities for baseball and football), or just a single multipurpose stadium?

Scba

September 3rd, 2007, 09:12 PM

There's no need for a baseball stadium in Hawaii to have a capacity over 10,000, so I don't think a multipurpose would be necessary. I like how Aloha was unique in that way, but the main baseball field in Hawaii is getting a renovation as we speak.

nyrmetros

September 5th, 2007, 11:08 PM

The Game Is Up

September 6th, 2007, 01:35 AM

Interesting.

http://68.72.70.73/jets/video/

nyrmetros

September 12th, 2007, 05:57 AM

Interesting.

http://68.72.70.73/jets/video/

all I can say is .... ehh.........
honestly, I'll only care if the US soccer team plays there in a WCQ.

eMKay

September 30th, 2007, 09:55 PM

Huge high def screens, ribbon boards, the Sabres light up, and after goals the slug blows smoke (like the old scoreboard did)

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/4153/jmbonw3.jpg

http://gretabytenetworkz.web1000.com/sb.jpg

Lowdy79

October 1st, 2007, 04:15 AM

how much did that scoreboard cost??

Wezza

October 1st, 2007, 04:45 AM

Looks like a bit of overkill!

shahe

October 2nd, 2007, 11:51 PM

That is beautiful!

eMKay

October 5th, 2007, 01:35 AM

how much did that scoreboard cost??

I have no idea, they have not released the cost, probably a few million dollars if you use the similar scoreboard at TD Banknorth Garden as an example. That one is quoted to cost "multi-million dollars"

LMCA1990

October 5th, 2007, 02:46 AM

nice. where exactly is this arena?

eMKay

October 5th, 2007, 03:08 AM

nice. where exactly is this arena?

Buffalo, New York.

bagel

October 7th, 2007, 12:31 PM

Are people going to watch the scoreboard or are they going to watch the ice? Because it looks like the scoreboard is more spectacular than the rink.

krudmonk

October 9th, 2007, 02:49 AM

HP Pavilion in San Jose got a similar revamp:
http://sharkspage.com/galleries/2007_tealandwhite/images/teal_and_white15.jpg

NovaWolverine

October 9th, 2007, 04:08 AM

http://bp3.blogger.com/_OJnyjIiqkCg/RvnYb_BZwvI/AAAAAAAAAqE/zB85LjhXA-A/s1600/Caps%2BJumbotron%2B002.jpg

The verizon center got a new scoreboard too, it's the first indoor HD LED scoreboard.

Msradell

November 2nd, 2007, 04:28 AM

Louisville's new 22,000 seat arena will be built in downtown Louisville on the Ohio River. The arena will be the home to the University of Louisville men's basketball team as well as the Louisville Fire Arena Football team. The arena will open in 2010.

Here's a link to the concept Design drawings:Design Drawings (http://www.arenaauthority.com/docs/ArenaConceptDesign625.pdf)

Here's a link to the Arena Authority website:Arena Authority (http://www.arenaauthority.com/)

This combined with the new 63 story Museum Plaza development will certainly change louisville's waterfront!

Aceventura

November 7th, 2007, 07:21 PM

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/football/nfl/11/01/fvi.intro/index.html?eref=T1

Loads of info on each stadium.

krudmonk

November 8th, 2007, 02:14 AM

Shocking, another Lambeau lovefest...

pompeyfan

November 8th, 2007, 09:08 AM

I think that rating is a joke

Lambeau above UoPS?

Benn

November 8th, 2007, 07:51 PM

I'm really suprised to see Detroit that high, especially in terms of overall fan experience.... I suppose if you go directly from the airport to the core are and don't look at the rest of the city it could be okay, but fourth best experience in a dome in Detroit, come on now.

I have to say I am not that big a fan of the U of Pheonix, just too drab on the inside with out anything much around it. Those rankings really did not factor the facility itself as the main factor. Team players were as important as the stadium itself. When espn does these things they are a little more accurate in reflecting design, and less in who has the craziest fans or cheapest food and most parking.
But the packers fans (as much as hate each and every one of them) are alot more passionate than cardinals fans, and will be tailgating at 10 am in -5 degree weather and that sort of thing.

icracked

November 28th, 2007, 10:28 AM

^^ Honolulu ain't a small city, sir. Even with our 50,000 seat stadium, there's not enough room to accommodate everyone such as with our last football game against Boise State University.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2194/2060910772_aa035ee43f_o.jpgWhen Hawaii won the WAC 2007 Champion and is the only undefeated team in the NCAA.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/129/347241895_588e2f9bd1_b.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Alohastadium.jpg
Side note, talks about building a bigger stadium 60,000-80,000 seat range is in the works to replace our current stadium arena which needs to be updated.

nomarandlee

November 28th, 2007, 10:03 PM

From over in the Tampa Forum (Jonknee specifically). New renders about a new proposed Rays stadium (MLB baseball).

http://blogs.tampabay.com/rays/2007/11/rays-unveil-dra.html

November 28, 2007
Rays unveil dramatic ballpark vision

ST. PETERSBURG — The Tampa Bay Rays this afternoon revealed a bold plan for a new waterfront baseball stadium at one end of a dramatically transformed St. Petersburg downtown.

The Rays’ plans call for a $450-million, open-air, 34,000-seat stadium to open in 2012 at the current site of Al Lang Field. On the other end of downtown at Tropicana Field, the team proposes a massive retail and residential development.
"We’re talking about a major-league downtown," Rays principal owner Stuart Sternberg said during a meeting with the St. Petersburg Times editorial board, where he previewed the concept.

"My goodness, it's beautiful," said Gov. Charlie Crist, after a rendering of the stadium was unveiled.

The break in the team’s silence comes after nearly three weeks of speculation. Rays officials said they spent 1 1/2 years working on the plan, which was first reported Nov. 9 by the St. Petersburg Times’ Web site, www.tampabay.com.

The team formally unveiled its plans at a 2:15 p.m. announcement that included Crist, St. Petersburg Mayor Rick Baker and Major League Baseball president Bob DuPuy.

Several significant questions remain about financing, parking and the Florida heat.
Rays officials insist the project will not require new tax money. But the plan does call for $60-million in state tax money and property tax revenue from the redeveloped Tropicana Field site, as well as proceeds from the sale of that land.
The team says it believes it can stay within its $450-million stadium budget and, if not, would be responsible for any cost overruns.

"No new taxes," Sternberg said.

The stadium would require approval of St. Petersburg voters, because it involves a long-term lease of waterfront property. The team is asking for a November 2008 city referendum.

The stadium would include a sail-like cover, anchored to a 320-foot-tall mast, that could be used when it rains. It would be constructed in a way to maximize views of the waterfront and the city skyline in what Sternberg termed a "sweeping, open, inviting" design.

"We want to create something iconic … that will become the postcard shot of St. Pete," Rays vice president Michael Kalt said.

The Rays plan for the stadium to open for the 2012 season, which would allow the team to play host to the Major League Baseball All-Star Game within a few years. The team believes the stadium would become a destination, with fans spending hours before and after games in the area.

"We have the ability to make such an impact on the community, and we embrace our responsibility," said Rays president Matt Silverman.

Among the key points to the project:

Tropicana redevelopment

The Rays are working with one of the world’s largest private real estate developers to turn Tropicana Field and its adjacent parking lots into a mixed-use development worth up to $700-million.

Hines Interests in Houston has developed a plan to turn the 85-acre Trop site into a sprawling retail and residential community, anchored by a major outdoor merchandise chain. Rays officials declined to name the retailer.

The development would include 900 residential units and 1-million square feet of retail space, team officials said. Fourteen new acres of public parks would be created and centered around an enhanced Booker Creek.

If the Rays keep to their timetable, work on the site would begin in 2009, and a first phase would be complete by 2011.

"It’s a blank canvas for a developer," said Rays president Matt Silverman.

Combined with a new stadium on the waterfront, team officials said the development could finally push the growth of downtown beyond the waterfront while fulfilling the promise of economic development that never materialized at the Tropicana site.

In order for any of it to happen, though, the city first would have to request proposals for the site from developers — a requirement because the land is publicly owned.

The city would get to set the ground rules — how many residential units, how much retail — but the developers would set the asking price.

Rays officials said Hines is interested in developing the site, but recognize that other developers would be, too. Kalt said the team would ask the city to begin the development process within months.

Financing

Sternberg pledged that the stadium would be built with no new city taxes. The money, $450-million, largely would come from the Rays and the redevelopment of the Tropicana Field site.

The cost includes a contingency, Kalt said, as well as money for improvements to a park to the north of the stadium. Any cost overruns would be the team’s responsibility, Kalt said.

Here’s how the financing would work:

The Rays, who now pay about $1-million a year in rent to the city, would increase their yearly payments to close to $10-million. The city would then issue bonds, with the rent as the pledged revenue, to pay approximately $150-million of the construction costs.

The Rays also would benefit from the sale and redevelopment of the Tropicana Field site. The team said the site could be worth between $250-million and $300-million to the Rays. Part of that money would come from the future property taxes created by the Tropicana redevelopment. Called tax increment financing, the program funnels city and county property taxes toward downtown capital projects.

The tax program has been in place in downtown St. Petersburg since 1982 and runs through 2035.

The two revenue streams, Kalt said, are "sufficient to form a financing plan."

Sternberg said the team also would pursue $60-million in state funding in the form of a sales tax subsidy.

"It is a significant amount of money that would cause us to make changes in our design" if the legislature rejects the funding, Sternberg said. But, "it wouldn’t be a show stopper."

Weather issues

Though the stadium would be open air, a sail-like roof that could be deployed in about eight minutes would provide cover in the event of rain, resulting in postponements or delays only in extreme conditions.

The Rays would play mostly night games in the stadium and would plan to keep the cover on during the afternoons to keep the temperature in the seating area down. Fans or misters would provide cooling, and some stadium areas — possibly the concourses — would be air-conditioned.

Team officials said with that technology and the breeze coming off Tampa Bay, the stadium would be relatively comfortable even without full air conditioning. The team has hired a climatologist who estimates it would be about 4 degrees cooler than the average temperature for a game in Atlanta, and on par with summer conditions in Kansas City and St. Louis.

Stadium design

Rather than the retro look that has been popularized in Baltimore, Cleveland, Arlington, Texas, and San Diego, the proposed stadium would have an open, modernistic “21st century design” without a brick in the building.

Though the 34,000-seat stadium would be a snug fit when oriented on the Al Lang site, the field dimensions will not be compromised, with somewhat standard measurements, including 320 feet down the rightfield line, with balls that go over the wall and splash into the water.

The roof would be attached to the top of the stadium and anchored to a 320-foot mast in left-centerfield. The cables for the roof would be strung permanently over the playing field but high enough that they would only come into play in the most extreme circumstances. (Architects said the same thing about the catwalks at Tropicana Field, but they are hit regularly.)

"Essentially it’s a glorified umbrella," Kalt said.

"I like to think of it as a convertible top," Silverman said.

The seating areas would be constructed to maximize views of the water and St. Petersburg’s skyline, with what would be the smallest upper deck seating area (about 10,000 seats) in Major League Baseball. There would be no seats from the rightfield foul pole across to left-centerfield.

Although the stadium will be designed for baseball, it will be able to accommodate other events, including football, which could lead to a college football bowl game.
To accommodate the stadium, the Rays say they would need to fill in a small area of the waterfront to shift a section of Bayshore Drive east. The road would be closed to vehicles on game days.

At today's announcement, Rays' first-baseman Carlos Pena hit balls from what would be the spot of home plate in the new ballpark. After several attempts, he hit a ball into the Tampa Bay.

Parking

There would be minimal parking on the site, provided by a small garage. The Rays say there are enough existing spots in lots and garages in the area. They say there are 12,000 spots within a 15-minute walk of the stadium and that many could be used for game parking, that more could be available, and there will also be parking at the Tropicana Field site, with some type of shuttle service.

-- By Aaron Sharockman and Marc Topkin, Times staff writers

November 28, 2007