(09-19-2013 04:00 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(09-19-2013 03:53 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(09-19-2013 03:38 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I personally eliminate all domed stadiums from any "best stadium" discussion.

Devil's Advocate here.

Double devil's advocate. Domed stadiums are the only ones that pay for themselves. Outdoor baseball and especially football stadiums never pay for themselves due to limited use outside of games.

Exactly. The Georgia Dome was paid off in 20 years because of all the extra events that could held there. What I've never understood was the retractable roof. For football its rarely open and adds an extra 100 million onto the price of the stadium, to say nothing about maintenance. You'd come our better just paying to 20 million for the moveable field and permanent roof.

(09-20-2013 06:40 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  If your stadium has a horseshoe or stands that have a "wedge" or non-complete endzone ... you have done it wrong.
I would propose the following ... turning BDS into Autzen-east.
*******


My Humble Proposal:

It appears to me your proposal and your statement about endzones seem to contradict each other?

(09-20-2013 06:40 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Stadiums are a pet peeve of mine.

To me a good stadium needs to have the fans be right on top of the field ... be designed to be loud ... have no obstructed views ... and be architecturally beautiful.

A huge number of stadiums have been endlessly bolted onto over the years and it shows in their hideous jauntiness when viewed as a whole.

If your stadium has a horseshoe or stands that have a "wedge" or non-complete endzone ... you have done it wrong.

Agreed.

(09-20-2013 06:53 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  What I've never understood was the retractable roof. For football its rarely open and adds an extra 100 million onto the price of the stadium, to say nothing about maintenance. You'd come our better just paying to 20 million for the moveable field and permanent roof.

Depends. I you are talking about a retractable roof in a stadium that otherwise would have been open air, then it is worth the investment to it can hold events year round. Dallas is a perfect example. Atlanta and St. Louis are to an extent, but they were built before those became perfected, ad became domed stadiums for other uses. But when you are talking football stadiums that are retractable, in places that used to have domes because of weather (Houston, Indy, Arizona, and new a stadiums in Minneapolis, and if only because they've been a dome team for 20 years, Atlanta) they are mostly vanity issues, things you would not see if the owners had to pay for the stadiums themselves.

I give baseball teams a bit of a pass because most that have them need the roof for part of the year but not the other part. And because baseball stadiums general cost less, and make back more money for the city (taxes from impact of daily use). Also baseball teams tend to have to put up more money for their stadiums than football teams do, who put up very little money, they cost the most money of any stadium type, and make the least back for the investor.

I really like stadiums and especially arenas, and have visited a lot of them. But the financing aspect of it disgusts me. Especially when my former employers are the ones most responsible for it.

(09-20-2013 11:37 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(09-20-2013 06:53 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  What I've never understood was the retractable roof. For football its rarely open and adds an extra 100 million onto the price of the stadium, to say nothing about maintenance. You'd come our better just paying to 20 million for the moveable field and permanent roof.

Depends. I you are talking about a retractable roof in a stadium that otherwise would have been open air, then it is worth the investment to it can hold events year round. Dallas is a perfect example. Atlanta and St. Louis are to an extent, but they were built before those became perfected, ad became domed stadiums for other uses. But when you are talking football stadiums that are retractable, in places that used to have domes because of weather (Houston, Indy, Arizona, and new a stadiums in Minneapolis, and if only because they've been a dome team for 20 years, Atlanta) they are mostly vanity issues, things you would not see if the owners had to pay for the stadiums themselves.

I give baseball teams a bit of a pass because most that have them need the roof for part of the year but not the other part. And because baseball stadiums general cost less, and make back more money for the city (taxes from impact of daily use). Also baseball teams tend to have to put up more money for their stadiums than football teams do, who put up very little money, they cost the most money of any stadium type, and make the least back for the investor.

I really like stadiums and especially arenas, and have visited a lot of them. But the financing aspect of it disgusts me. Especially when my former employers are the ones most responsible for it.

Of course financing varies per stadium deal. In ATL, Blank originally proposed building an outdoor stadium for around $300 million. Of course with the Dome still in existence he would have never seen the ROI that he would have liked. Instead, Blank and the NFL are putting up about $800 million with the city on the hook for $200 million. $200 million is about what the original Ga Dome cost back in 1992 and Blank with end up with most of the profits from concessions from ancillary events (SEC Champions, Final Fours, etc). That said, its a better deal than the $700 million the state of MN will have to pony up for their new stadium.

While I understand your lament regarding stadium financing, I'm sure you understand that governments are just as culpable for foisting these high price pieces of 'civic jewelry' on taxpayers. Atlanta's mayor is under the impression that this will be a legacy project for him and that such a facility will spur development in an economically depressed portion of the city. Never mind the fact that the 3 previous projects (Ga Dome, Turner Field, Phillips Arena) have failed to deliver on similar promises.

The Georgia Dome did deliver the SEC Championship game to Atlanta...

(09-20-2013 12:29 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  While I understand your lament regarding stadium financing, I'm sure you understand that governments are just as culpable for foisting these high price pieces of 'civic jewelry' on taxpayers. Atlanta's mayor is under the impression that this will be a legacy project for him and that such a facility will spur development in an economically depressed portion of the city. Never mind the fact that the 3 previous projects (Ga Dome, Turner Field, Phillips Arena) have failed to deliver on similar promises.

I worked for the MD Stadium Authority when they were looking into building an arena to attract the Spurs and/or Rockets. I got pretty familiar with it. My biggest issue is paying for it all, adding ridiculous stuff to them, AND doing so without charging them for it. It's amazing how different private stadiums (AT&T Park in SF, Fed Ex in DC) are than publically financed ones.

(09-20-2013 12:38 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The Georgia Dome did deliver the SEC Championship game to Atlanta...

I have no problem with basketball arenas or most domes for this reason. They tend to make their money back with other events.

(09-20-2013 12:29 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-20-2013 11:37 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(09-20-2013 06:53 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  What I've never understood was the retractable roof. For football its rarely open and adds an extra 100 million onto the price of the stadium, to say nothing about maintenance. You'd come our better just paying to 20 million for the moveable field and permanent roof.

Depends. I you are talking about a retractable roof in a stadium that otherwise would have been open air, then it is worth the investment to it can hold events year round. Dallas is a perfect example. Atlanta and St. Louis are to an extent, but they were built before those became perfected, ad became domed stadiums for other uses. But when you are talking football stadiums that are retractable, in places that used to have domes because of weather (Houston, Indy, Arizona, and new a stadiums in Minneapolis, and if only because they've been a dome team for 20 years, Atlanta) they are mostly vanity issues, things you would not see if the owners had to pay for the stadiums themselves.

I give baseball teams a bit of a pass because most that have them need the roof for part of the year but not the other part. And because baseball stadiums general cost less, and make back more money for the city (taxes from impact of daily use). Also baseball teams tend to have to put up more money for their stadiums than football teams do, who put up very little money, they cost the most money of any stadium type, and make the least back for the investor.

I really like stadiums and especially arenas, and have visited a lot of them. But the financing aspect of it disgusts me. Especially when my former employers are the ones most responsible for it.

Of course financing varies per stadium deal. In ATL, Blank originally proposed building an outdoor stadium for around $300 million. Of course with the Dome still in existence he would have never seen the ROI that he would have liked. Instead, Blank and the NFL are putting up about $800 million with the city on the hook for $200 million. $200 million is about what the original Ga Dome cost back in 1992 and Blank with end up with most of the profits from concessions from ancillary events (SEC Champions, Final Fours, etc). That said, its a better deal than the $700 million the state of MN will have to pony up for their new stadium.

While I understand your lament regarding stadium financing, I'm sure you understand that governments are just as culpable for foisting these high price pieces of 'civic jewelry' on taxpayers. Atlanta's mayor is under the impression that this will be a legacy project for him and that such a facility will spur development in an economically depressed portion of the city. Never mind the fact that the 3 previous projects (Ga Dome, Turner Field, Phillips Arena) have failed to deliver on similar promises.

Officially its 800/200, but Atlanta is giving things back in maintenance and other items in the later years, so that its still probably pretty close to 700/300.

(09-20-2013 01:05 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I worked for the MD Stadium Authority when they were looking into building an arena to attract the Spurs and/or Rockets. I got pretty familiar with it. My biggest issue is paying for it all, adding ridiculous stuff to them, AND doing so without charging them for it. It's amazing how different private stadiums (AT&T Park in SF, Fed Ex in DC) are than publically financed ones.

I don't know. Both Jerry World (AT&T has their name plastered over too much stuff now) and Met Life Stadium were both privately financed. But reports from players say that while MetLife is an OK new stadium, Jerry World is a palace.

Things I like in a stadium are:
-Steep enough that you can get height without too much distance from the field.
-The field needs to be below the first row of stands especially if the stadium rises gradually.
-The sideline seats should point towards the center of the field instead of being parallel to the field.
-The facade shouldn't be just the structural steel web that makes up the support of the stadium.

I submit these pictures to illustrate:






I also enjoy a good view of the mountains from the stands. This is a pic I took from my seat the first game this year:

Not a big fan of the exaggerated snaggle tooth sidelines at Va Tech or Indiana. And yes, I understand their purpose. This thread is about form and function, not just function.

(09-20-2013 01:21 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-20-2013 01:05 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I worked for the MD Stadium Authority when they were looking into building an arena to attract the Spurs and/or Rockets. I got pretty familiar with it. My biggest issue is paying for it all, adding ridiculous stuff to them, AND doing so without charging them for it. It's amazing how different private stadiums (AT&T Park in SF, Fed Ex in DC) are than publicly financed ones.

I don't know. Both Jerry World (AT&T has their name plastered over too much stuff now) and Met Life Stadium were both privately financed. But reports from players say that while MetLife is an OK new stadium, Jerry World is a palace.

They both had SUBSTANTIAL public assistance though. I was speaking of the ones purely built with private money, and how they don't compare. Because those stadiums have to be paid off by the owners and gate revenue, not the municipality.

But yeah, Jerry World set a new standard. Stole a couple of my ideas too But the good thing is it is so impressive, most new stadiums won't even try.

(09-20-2013 02:31 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Jerry World set a new standard. Stole a couple of my ideas too But the good thing is it is so impressive, most new stadiums won't even try.

Not many folks have a spare couple of billion bucks laying around, which is what it would take to match Jerry's palace...