urbanMSP

Dont think so. I saw an article stating that the University, TCF bank, was a better bet.

Related news: United FC out, Minnesota FC in. http://www.twincities.com/2016/03/08/un ... nesota-fc/

...or at the very least, covering their bases.

Good. Calling the team "United" just to sound like other teams when it hadn't been separate teams in the past always seemed kind of dumb. Though at least they're not using "Real" like Salt Lake City. I wasn't aware Utah had royalty, but whatever (and yes, I know about the connection with Real Madrid, but it's still stupid). As for FC...well, technically it's not an FC, I don't think, but that's not as bad as the others, so I'll give that one a pass.

United isn't amazing by any means, but Minnesota FC isn't even a real name.

That's pretty boring. If they're keeping the loon logo, why not the Loons?

Bring back the Minnesota "Kicks" and their funky orange and teal uniforms

Related news: United FC out, Minnesota FC in. http://www.twincities.com/2016/03/08/un ... nesota-fc/

...or at the very least, covering their bases.

At first I thought this was no big deal, Minnesota FC seemed just fine. Thinking about this more, the more I'm getting frustrated with it. First, we were called United FC before joining the MLS, Atlanta is purely an expansion team, they picked the name because it's a popular name for EPL teams. Second, the name United fits so strongly with the culture of the Twin Cities. We are two cities, united behind one team. The Twins got their name for the same reason.

I wonder if there can be some political horse trading can happen at MLS HQ?

That's pretty boring. If they're keeping the loon logo, why not the Loons?

If we can't get "United" I'd just stick with Minnesota FC or FC Minnesota. Follows the tradition of teams in Europe that don't have a formal nickname.

St. Paul FC.

Never really felt much for the United moniker, but it fits Minnesota more than Atlanta, especially since it's already our name. I hope this leads to a fierce rivalry every time Atlanta comes to town.

I think it would be cool if United or U could be worked into the negative space in Minnesota, something similar to the 11 that was in the Big Ten logo after Penn State joined a while back.

Never really felt much for the United moniker, but it fits Minnesota more than Atlanta, especially since it's already our name. I hope this leads to a fierce rivalry every time Atlanta comes to town.

I think it would be cool if United or U could be worked into the negative space in Minnesota, something similar to the 11 that was in the Big Ten logo after Penn State joined a while back.

My assumption is that they're going to keep everything but the name the same. I'd be really disappointed if they changed that beyond a minor tweak. The logo is awesome IMO.

Minneapolis FC. They're playing in our largest suburb, so it works.

In the yesterday's Minnpost article about the legislative session, it said that in all likelihood there will be no legislative movement on the soccer stadium until the end of session. So that has everyone waiting until at least May(?) to make a move.
I guess nothing is slam dunk these days, so a lot of stakeholders (ownership group, RK Midway, the contractors, the city, etc...) will have to hold off on solidifying any plans until the legislature gives the green/red light....

That's a long time when you are holding your breath and crossing your fingers!

https://www.minnpost.com/politics-polic ... tate-legis

Mod note: I chopped off the first half of this topic (when we were talking about the Minneapolis site) and sent that to the Nostalgia subforum. I also gave it a jazzy new title.

http://m.startribune.com/neighbors-weig ... 372185791/

...their house has a one-car garage -- but they own three cars.

And that's the city's problem, why?

I hate the cliche comment about traffic concerns but this one's fairly legit. I'm curious how difficult/costly it is for the city to issue the blocks most impacted by stadium parking overflow residential permits so only residents can park during non-business hours. When my parents lived in Lincoln Park in Chicago they had residential permits, and almost never got to park their car in front of their condo (nobody could, it was always jam-packed with cars), even with residential permits. It's the trade-off you get for being so close to all of these great amenities, but in this case I don't think the nearby streets will be too jammed as long as they don't allow non-residents to park on weeknights/game times.

I hate the cliche comment about traffic concerns but this one's fairly legit. I'm curious how difficult/costly it is for the city to issue the blocks most impacted by stadium parking overflow residential permits so only residents can park during non-business hours. When my parents lived in Lincoln Park in Chicago they had residential permits, and almost never got to park their car in front of their condo (nobody could, it was always jam-packed with cars), even with residential permits. It's the trade-off you get for being so close to all of these great amenities, but in this case I don't think the nearby streets will be too jammed as long as they don't allow non-residents to park on weeknights/game times.

Plain and simple fact, you don't own the parking spot in front of you place as a result it's available to the public. This should be considered when choosing where to live.

-(-1)

-(-2)
I really dislike the idea of residential parking permits that exclude other people from parking. Permits are fine, but there should be a meter option alongside it. And if there's still a lack of on-street parking such as your Lincoln Park example, then the permit fee should obviously go up.