Vikings Stadium Miscellaneous Discussion

[Rich]

MSFA Chair Michele Kelm-Helgen, who undoubtedly has seen the HKS designs, says "the stadium will include plenty of windows and transparent fabrics." So I think we can be confident that, even with no retractable roof, the atmosphere should at least be more airy and light-filled than other domed venues.

http://www.rejournals.com/2013/02/21/mi ... easy-task/

[min-chi-cbus]

You know, it JUST hit me.......the new open-roof stadium may not be such a burden to the team/fans in the future if you consider the impacts of Global Climate Change. If our average winters are more like the ones we have been experiencing the past few winters (or likely, even milder) then outdoor games really won't be as big of a deal as we may have thought. Now I realize that doesn't do anything to help conventions and such, but still, I neglected to consider that scenario.

[nasa35]

You know, it JUST hit me.......the new open-roof stadium may not be such a burden to the team/fans in the future if you consider the impacts of Global Climate Change. If our average winters are more like the ones we have been experiencing the past few winters (or likely, even milder) then outdoor games really won't be as big of a deal as we may have thought. Now I realize that doesn't do anything to help conventions and such, but still, I neglected to consider that scenario.

I'm assuming your tongue is in your cheek?

I think It needs some type of opening to let in fresh air.

[mullen]

i wonder the cost difference between a movable window and a roof. just come out and say it will be a movable roof. i agree it will be a disappointment after all this bluster to have a retractable "feature" but not a retractable roof. it will not be as a good as indy's stadium and we all know the vikings desire to copy and/or one-up it.

you're doing this one time (for 30-40 years at least) and it needs to be done right.

[talindsay]

If the baseball negotiations showed nothing else, they demonstrated that the Vikes are primarily interested in one-upmanship. They want to have the biggest/fanciest/best-fan-experience/shiniest/most-some-kind-of-superlative stadium they can on opening day. The whole baseball debacle was because they wanted to have the stadium with seats closest to the field. When you're in a unit-size war your definition of "right" takes on a different perspective. So as long as "most-open-to-the-air-stadium" or "most-convertible-stadium" or some such thing as that, you'll get your fresh air.

[John]

MSFA Chair Michele Kelm-Helgen, who undoubtedly has seen the HKS designs, says "the stadium will include plenty of windows and transparent fabrics." So I think we can be confident that, even with no retractable roof, the atmosphere should at least be more airy and light-filled than other domed venues.

http://www.rejournals.com/2013/02/21/mi ... easy-task/

IMO, this is yet another comment that makes me optimistic about the design of this stadium. I'm more and more confident this is going to be a winner for Minneapolis. Very exciting!

[Jfuss]

MSFA Chair Michele Kelm-Helgen, who undoubtedly has seen the HKS designs, says "the stadium will include plenty of windows and transparent fabrics." So I think we can be confident that, even with no retractable roof, the atmosphere should at least be more airy and light-filled than other domed venues.

http://www.rejournals.com/2013/02/21/mi ... easy-task/

IMO, this is yet another comment that makes me optimistic about the design of this stadium. I'm more and more confident this is going to be a winner for Minneapolis. Very exciting!

The transparent fabrics comment has me a little worried. For some reason I can't get Teflon out of my mind because of it.

[John]

MSFA Chair Michele Kelm-Helgen, who undoubtedly has seen the HKS designs, says "the stadium will include plenty of windows and transparent fabrics." So I think we can be confident that, even with no retractable roof, the atmosphere should at least be more airy and light-filled than other domed venues.

http://www.rejournals.com/2013/02/21/mi ... easy-task/

IMO, this is yet another comment that makes me optimistic about the design of this stadium. I'm more and more confident this is going to be a winner for Minneapolis. Very exciting!

The transparent fabrics comment has me a little worried. For some reason I can't get Teflon out of my mind because of it.

lol. I hope they use something a little stronger for one billion dollars!

[Tyler]

MSFA Chair Michele Kelm-Helgen, who undoubtedly has seen the HKS designs, says "the stadium will include plenty of windows and transparent fabrics." So I think we can be confident that, even with no retractable roof, the atmosphere should at least be more airy and light-filled than other domed venues.

http://www.rejournals.com/2013/02/21/mi ... easy-task/

IMO, this is yet another comment that makes me optimistic about the design of this stadium. I'm more and more confident this is going to be a winner for Minneapolis. Very exciting!

The transparent fabrics comment has me a little worried. For some reason I can't get Teflon out of my mind because of it.

ETFE. It makes me think something like the 2nd proposal is in the mix. You wouldn't need to use it except for large sections of transparent roof.

[talindsay]

Actually, the comment about the windows makes me nervous for a different reason - it sounds like she's describing the Metrodome's problem as being because it doesn't have windows on the street. Obviously that's absurd, and that's not really what she means, but the implication behind it seems to be a deep misunderstanding of why the Metrodome didn't spur a lively neighborhood. The stadium itself can't produce active uses except before and after events; the design decisions that will help the neighborhood are all about mixed uses around the stadium, about bringing the neighborhood in close against the stadium structure, about developing active non-game-day uses into the stadium site itself, about not allowing a giant narrow-use structure to sit on a superblock all by itself, surrounded by acres of grey parking surfaces. The implication in that story that they need to put windows in the stadium so people can see in and out because that will help engage the neighborhood is absurd.

[Nick]

The conversation has luckily already moved on since this morning, but I really just want to point out that we (the forum) really did invent the notion of us copying Lucas Oil Stadium. There was like one massing model, not even an architectural rendering, from a year ago that used Lucas Oil as a stand-in to show how big the site is. Then everyone said, "no, not Lucas Oil!!" and started complaining about that. I feel like it's somehow ingrained in many posters' minds and keeps resurfacing as a complaint.

[nordeast homer]

You're right about that. If you look at every image that they've shown of the Metrodome site, not a single one has even remotely resembled Lucas Oil Stadium. I've half way been hoping people are kidding when they keep protesting so much. The main two images that we have seen are so far removed from a brick behemoth that I can't imagine we would get anything less than a very modern, sleek, and unique facility.

[TWA]

As long as we don't have to get a 60 yard-long monstrosity of a video board like what they threw up in the cowboy stadium.

[John]

Actually, the comment about the windows makes me nervous for a different reason - it sounds like she's describing the Metrodome's problem as being because it doesn't have windows on the street. Obviously that's absurd, and that's not really what she means, but the implication behind it seems to be a deep misunderstanding of why the Metrodome didn't spur a lively neighborhood. The stadium itself can't produce active uses except before and after events; the design decisions that will help the neighborhood are all about mixed uses around the stadium, about bringing the neighborhood in close against the stadium structure, about developing active non-game-day uses into the stadium site itself, about not allowing a giant narrow-use structure to sit on a superblock all by itself, surrounded by acres of grey parking surfaces. The implication in that story that they need to put windows in the stadium so people can see in and out because that will help engage the neighborhood is absurd.

I think you raise excellent points, especially about bringing the neighborhood close against the new stadium. And having it surrounded by a sea of parking ramps or lots would be stupid. But I have no doubt the current Metrodome's design is crap and does nothing to contribute to the neighborhood or skyline. I think it's still critical for the new stadium to have windows and transparency to help make this a lively area. I'm thinking the architect and MSFA at least "get it" about this.

[Tyler]

The conversation has luckily already moved on since this morning, but I really just want to point out that we (the forum) really did invent the notion of us copying Lucas Oil Stadium. There was like one massing model, not even an architectural rendering, from a year ago that used Lucas Oil as a stand-in to show how big the site is. Then everyone said, "no, not Lucas Oil!!" and started complaining about that. I feel like it's somehow ingrained in many posters' minds and keeps resurfacing as a complaint.

Kind of. The Vikings specifically mentioned Lucas Oil Field over and over while campaigning for this thing. That's when the fear arose. But in reality, the Vikings were always talking about the functionality of Lucas Oil, not visual design. There was also some worry when HKS was picked because in the past their designs have all sucked. But yeah, the renderings we've seen should have quieted the chatter.

[Didier]

Tyler's post should be stuck to the top of this thread. At this point we shouldn't have to keep repeating that!

[RailBaronYarr]

Actually, the comment about the windows makes me nervous for a different reason - it sounds like she's describing the Metrodome's problem as being because it doesn't have windows on the street. Obviously that's absurd, and that's not really what she means, but the implication behind it seems to be a deep misunderstanding of why the Metrodome didn't spur a lively neighborhood. The stadium itself can't produce active uses except before and after events; the design decisions that will help the neighborhood are all about mixed uses around the stadium, about bringing the neighborhood in close against the stadium structure, about developing active non-game-day uses into the stadium site itself, about not allowing a giant narrow-use structure to sit on a superblock all by itself, surrounded by acres of grey parking surfaces. The implication in that story that they need to put windows in the stadium so people can see in and out because that will help engage the neighborhood is absurd.

I think you raise excellent points, especially about bringing the neighborhood close against the new stadium. And having it surrounded by a sea of parking ramps or lots would be stupid. But I have no doubt the current Metrodome's design is crap and does nothing to contribute to the neighborhood or skyline. I think it's still critical for the new stadium to have windows and transparency to help make this a lively area. I'm thinking the architect and MSFA at least "get it" about this.

I will 'third' this - the problem with development around the Dome isn't that it was a poorly designed building (it was), but that the city and developers allowed large chunks of land to be devoted to parking. Blame speculating land owners choosing to keep them parking lots, blame the Strib, blame Zygi himself, blame the city for not changing zoning/tax laws to spur development.

I'm sure a better visual design will make people more likely to want to live there (or pay more), but I think it's imperative to have a mix of residence, retail, restaurants, bars (LOTS of them), and even some offices directly surrounding this sucker. Bars and restaurants should be self-supporting 44 weeks a year based on local and office population, and then simply bursting at the scenes on gamedays. Loosen rules on ramp tailgating to allow people to have fires/booze on the upper levels only, and then foster a great scene of food trucks, bargaiting (by rail, trail, or bus), and some other plaza activities. I love the scene of urban ballpark pre-games. We don't need to be Lambeau or Miller Park in downtown Mpls to have a great football scene.

BTW, same goes for the U. The city needs to loosen up on tailgating and liquor license rules...

[Didier]

Somebody can find the specifics, but the city has blamed the lack of development around the Metrodome to old zoning that emphasized developing the downtown core rather than downtown east.

[mattaudio]

The neighborhood lacked a sense of place, and there are a lot of reasons for it: Surface parking, large institutional uses (HCMC, Dome, etc), barren streetscape, etc. The best alternative at this point is to pick a main street and seed it... narrower street, enhanced amenities, a push for private development in the traditional model, etc. Then it will radiate to the rest of the area over time.

[moda253]

Actually, the comment about the windows makes me nervous for a different reason - it sounds like she's describing the Metrodome's problem as being because it doesn't have windows on the street. Obviously that's absurd, and that's not really what she means, but the implication behind it seems to be a deep misunderstanding of why the Metrodome didn't spur a lively neighborhood. The stadium itself can't produce active uses except before and after events; the design decisions that will help the neighborhood are all about mixed uses around the stadium, about bringing the neighborhood in close against the stadium structure, about developing active non-game-day uses into the stadium site itself, about not allowing a giant narrow-use structure to sit on a superblock all by itself, surrounded by acres of grey parking surfaces. The implication in that story that they need to put windows in the stadium so people can see in and out because that will help engage the neighborhood is absurd.

I think you raise excellent points, especially about bringing the neighborhood close against the new stadium. And having it surrounded by a sea of parking ramps or lots would be stupid. But I have no doubt the current Metrodome's design is crap and does nothing to contribute to the neighborhood or skyline. I think it's still critical for the new stadium to have windows and transparency to help make this a lively area. I'm thinking the architect and MSFA at least "get it" about this.

I will 'third' this - the problem with development around the Dome isn't that it was a poorly designed building (it was), but that the city and developers allowed large chunks of land to be devoted to parking. Blame speculating land owners choosing to keep them parking lots, blame the Strib, blame Zygi himself, blame the city for not changing zoning/tax laws to spur development.

I'm sure a better visual design will make people more likely to want to live there (or pay more), but I think it's imperative to have a mix of residence, retail, restaurants, bars (LOTS of them), and even some offices directly surrounding this sucker. Bars and restaurants should be self-supporting 44 weeks a year based on local and office population, and then simply bursting at the scenes on gamedays. Loosen rules on ramp tailgating to allow people to have fires/booze on the upper levels only, and then foster a great scene of food trucks, bargaiting (by rail, trail, or bus), and some other plaza activities. I love the scene of urban ballpark pre-games. We don't need to be Lambeau or Miller Park in downtown Mpls to have a great football scene.

BTW, same goes for the U. The city needs to loosen up on tailgating and liquor license rules...

Not sure how you would blame Zygi himself as he got here 25 years after it was built, but maybe you mean blame him for keeping it in Minneapolis which wouldnt really belong at his doorstep either (ahem... arden hills)...

The idea of creating a bar district around the area sounds great.... but it isn't going to work. At all. We already are trying to create that with North Loop and the existing 1st avenue area. I simply don't think there is enough demand to try and create another entertainment district in the downtown area that wouldn't pull from the other for half the year and vice versa the other half.

Now shopping...... that could definitely work. IF it can beat out two things. MOA (the original killer of downtown retail) and the fact that brick and mortar shopping is quickly becoming more and more a thing of the past. Brick and mortar shops are becoming viewing galleries for items that people end up buying online (See Best Buy).

Does the area need to generate money to be successful? I'm not sure about that. Housing can and should be increased in the area. But what about just accepting that this part of downtown doesn't have to compete financially with the rest of downtown? I'd rather see more ameneties that draw people to living downtown. If you look at how much land this is going to take up and how much land is available it seems to me that parkland surrounding the stadium and then the next level surrounding it filled in with housing and thoughtful retail to serve said housing seems to be a good use to me.

Let the areas that are trying to thrive as entertainment areas continue to do so instead of trying to pull it back the other way cross town.