MINNEAPOLIS - New Vikings Stadium (65,115)

[adeaide]

[GunnerJacket]

Originally Posted by spectre000

I think the Vikings are going to have to accept any plan will have to face a public referendum and be put before the public. I would like to see that happen, but I know the prospects of it passing are slim.

I know: The League could take some of their billions and use that to supplement the costs of their venues so as to not screw the taxpayers!!!







Right, what was I thinking.

[will101]

Originally Posted by GunnerJacket

I know: The League could take some of their billions and use that to supplement the costs of their venues so as to not screw the taxpayers!!!

Try this:
http://media.signonsandiego.com/news...an_program.pdf

Unless you are one of those people who thinks that NFL owners just have 55 gallon drums full of cash lying around.

[Somnifor]

If the public stopped subsidizing stadiums it probably wouldn't change the profitability of sports in general. Owners would cut expenses elsewhere to pay for them, they would probably start with salaries. The problem is that sports leagues in North America operate as unregulated cartels. By limiting the number of teams they create an artificial scarcity that then allows them to extort stadiums from cities and states by threatening to move.

Personally I think the best solution is either for the public to stop financing stadiums or to use eminent domian to buy the teams and create Green Bay style ownership. Under public ownership the use of public money to build stadiums would be justified. If they wish to remain private but take public money there should be some sort of regulation to prevent them from using the extortion tactic of threatening to move to get new stadiums.

Under normal circumstances cartels are illegal because they allow business owners to manipulate the market. For some reason we have made an exception for sports leagues. This is something that needs to change. Personally I would be ok with those of us who live in Minnesota being the ones who stand up and say no to this nonsense. A lot of people here feel the same way, which is why stadium proposals always face strong headwinds in the legislature and the city council.

[spectre000]

The Vikings released new renders of their stadium proposal.

http://finance-commerce.com/2012/04/...tadium-images/

[Major Deegan]

Neat. They even included a public park. Let's build it.

[will101]

Wouldn't a flat roof have snow issues?

[Somnifor]

In the second rendering it looks like they have rerouted the light rail.

[Jericho-79]

I just have to chuckle at the place-holder name "Minnesota Sports Complex", since all the other sports facilities are located on the other side of downtown.

[JJG]

Originally Posted by will101

Wouldn't a flat roof have snow issues?

Why a fixed roof at all? Why not go retractable?

[Benn]

$$$$$$$

Why else? Nicely organized urban scheme that does look beneficial for downtown east, but the fixed roof is pretty disappointing.

[dfwabel]

Originally Posted by JJG

Why a fixed roof at all? Why not go retractable?

How many months of the year will it be open? Two, maybe three?

Outside of an August/September/possibly October Vikings game there really is not a use for it outside of one (possible) summer concert. Not much use in the cost of the mechanics (I have seen estimates between $25M and $100M).

Plus, the Arden Hills/Ramsay County plan had the retractable roof and a plan for the Wilf's to try to get an MLS franchise. Clearly that was just the family trying to get the public to be OK with the tax hike since it would host more than ten events/games a year.

[JJG]

Personally, I wouldn't have gone with a roof at all, but hey, if it keeps the Vikes in Minnesota, more power to 'em.

[Benn]

Originally Posted by Somnifor

In the second rendering it looks like they have rerouted the light rail.

I don't think so, it runs right in front of the armory, with the stadium shifting further back on the site and being elliptical in nature there is more room near the existing station but I can't imagine anyone would seriously propose moving the LRT for any reason other than absolute necessity of getting the stadium up.

[bewilder2]

Originally Posted by Benn

I don't think so, it runs right in front of the armory, with the stadium shifting further back on the site and being elliptical in nature there is more room near the existing station but I can't imagine anyone would seriously propose moving the LRT for any reason other than absolute necessity of getting the stadium up.

The top pic and the bottom two pics are vastly different when it comes to the park area and LRT station. The top pic it is an ovalish building, the bottom two it is the square building w/ overhang roof.

They're just concept art at this point. Target Field didn't look much like the concept art either, if I remember correctly.

As far as the roof, it will be built "retractable ready", with the Vikes having the option of paying $100 million more in the future to make it so. (In all likelihood it will probably be $200 mil, more like. I can't imagine removing a roof is cheap!)

[Pelt]

Too bad they didn't throw in a couple of interior pics.

[Benn]

Thats probably because they don't exist yet, which is why the vikings included a rendering a couple of generations old with these new exterior images on their website. So far they have done a masterplan with a rough massing for the stadium, if and when they secure funding a design for the interior will be fleshed out and then you can have some pretty renderings.

[Marckymarc]

Originally Posted by will101

Wouldn't a flat roof have snow issues?

It's not flat. It's just pitched very shallow. I'm sure the engineers have taken into consideration an effective drainage system--probably including heating coils on the roof to instantly melt snow when needed.

"Flat" roofs are a myth anyway. Even roofs that appear flat are not--all roofs are pitched either inward toward a drain or outward to an eavetrough.

[Jericho-79]

If this stadium ends up with a fixed roof, I hope its roof is higher than that on Ford Field.

[will101]

Originally Posted by Marckymarc

It's not flat. It's just pitched very shallow. I'm sure the engineers have taken into consideration an effective drainage system--probably including heating coils on the roof to instantly melt snow when needed.

"Flat" roofs are a myth anyway. Even roofs that appear flat are not--all roofs are pitched either inward toward a drain or outward to an eavetrough.

I'm aware of that. But you need a slope of greater than 45 degrees for snow to fall off on it's own, and a power failure during a heavy snowstorm could do millions in damage to this design.