Ourbombers.com - Winnipeg Blue Bombers Message Board

Unoffical Bombers Board since 1997

Vikings new stadium

All non-CFL football related discussion

Moderators: Colin Unger, Raydawg, bigg jay, kenny23

Postby blueandgoldguy » Mon May 20, 2013 8:10 pm

iso_55 wrote:
Blue_In_Edmonton wrote:It's unique. I speculate that they've had enough difficulties with their roof that they decided against adding the complication of a retractable roof. It is already costing nearly a billion dollars. A roof that moves would only add to that.

With such a unique enclosed design like that holding 65,000 -72,000 seats I would think it costs just as much, if not more $$$ than a stadium with a retractable roof. It's the Vikings stadium to be sure & they can do what they want with it.
They have been a shadow of their former selves since moving into the Metrodome thirty years ago. If anything, this should have been an outdoor stadium like the one in New York so the thought of playing in Minneapolis in December would scare the **** out of teams. That was always why the Vikings were such an intimidating force back in the day. The weather late in the season.
I guess the thought of holding a Super Bowl once every 15 or 20 years in Minneapolis with a facility like they are building is more important than actually WINNING one.

It's more than the Super Bowl though...

The Wilfs wanted the Vikings to return outdoors, but the only way they could get any taxpayer funding was with an indoor stadium. Taxpayer funded stadiums aren't all that palatable to the public as it is, but are even less so if the stadium is only used 10 times a year. The state government wanted a domed stadium so it could be used year round and for much more than football-related events.

So, besides football and the occasional SuperBowl..

-NCAA Final Four and NCAA March Madness regionals
-conventions and tradeshows
-possible MLS team which would fill 18 or 19 dates a year
-social events (I know the old dome had ethnic-related gatherings - there was supposed to be a fillippino-related one that was cancelled when the dome collapsed)
Posts: 801
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 8:52 pm

Postby iso_55 » Mon May 20, 2013 10:32 pm

That is interesting to know. Imagine if the polititcians had the same attitude here. Build a domed 35-40,000 seat stadium because the facility could be used more therefore generating more revenue over time... I imagine you'd have been looking at a half billion dollar facility at the very least.
User avatar
Posts: 4911
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 10:51 am
Location: Calgary

Postby BlueBall » Fri May 24, 2013 12:55 am

iso_55 wrote:Not really enamoured with it. From the outside it looks ugly to me.

I agree. Not necessarily ugly, just strange. Certainly not like any football stadium I've ever seen but I guess that's the idea. Designs for everything are getting more abstract nowadays, nothing looks like what it's supposed to. I really like the inside though, how the glass lets in the light so at least it seems like you're at an outdoor stadium without the late season cold weather. Much nicer than the Metrodome.
User avatar
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 9:51 pm

Postby iso_55 » Fri May 24, 2013 4:37 pm

Taxpayers ***** & complain & rightly so about the cost of these edifaces. So, instead of trying to build a modern & efficient 65,000 seat indoor stadium at the lowest cost possible they spend hundreds of millions of dollars more on designing structures like that.
Most people in Minneapolis won't be able to afford tickets or attend games as that is for the elite now. However, that doesn't stop the NFL & the politicians from building something so ugly that it will blight the Minneapolis skyline for the next 30 years.
Now, maybe the use of tempered glass lowers the cost, I dunno as I'm not an architect or engineer but how much more uglier could they possibly have gone in designing a building like that??
Ever see Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis? It looks like a huge warehouse from the outside.
User avatar
Posts: 4911
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 10:51 am
Location: Calgary

Postby iso_55 » Fri May 24, 2013 8:18 pm

In Minnesota's case, the weather was usually their biggest ally. As soon as that team went indoors they lost their edge. They may never win a Super Bowl with 32 teams in the NFL now. It seems the only way that this project could get through the Minnesota legislature was to build an enclosed multi purpose facility so it could be used year round. Too bad... Like I said we won't be seeing any SB in Minneapolis anytime soon.
User avatar
Posts: 4911
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 10:51 am
Location: Calgary


Return to General Discussion

  • View new posts
  • View unanswered posts
  • Who is online
  • In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
  • Most users ever online was 428 on Mon Jun 14, 2010 9:10 pm
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest