urbanMSP

The thing is, PSLs are a market-tested success; they are going to happen. The question is simply to what extent.

My understanding is that the new stadium will have a "club" level, like the Xcel Energy Center and Target Field, which would be an ideal place in which to use PSLs. The concern is if the Vikings try to stick them on all season-ticket holders, people like Lars Svensen from Walker who sit in the end zone and simply can't afford them.

I generally like Dayton too, but I'm also a little hesitant to give him the benefit of the doubt that this is calculated. Either way, though, the Vikings deserve all of the bad publicity they can get in matters like this. Hopefully that leads to them making the least bad decision.

PSLs are great because one can transfer tickets from holder to another easily. Right now having to write a check to guy who has the season tickets, who in turn writes a check to the Vikings is a pain in the ass. If you could transfer the tickets over that would be great.

The entire stadium should have been either paid for with PSLs or charge market value rent to the Vikes.

There's an encouraging consensus forming among stadium planning principals. They really want to integrate the facility with the neighborhood and they recognize how critical it is to attract development. Mistakes made with the Metrodome seem unlikely to be made again:

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/comm ... page=2&c=y

I personally think shops and bars should be attached to the actual stadium. It would be nice if it was smaller and could blend in with city, not stick out like the dome. Residential buildings could surround Target Stadium on the opposite side of the streets, and parking ramps could go up to replace the parking lots. Also, continue rail gating! Providing an open spot to tailgate in a downtown area that will be empty most of the year is a waste of space.

The reason why it probably isn't done is because businesses would rather be in existing vibrant neighborhoods. Even if the stadium area was thriving, would a business rather be in a thriving area with crazy drunks tearing it up 10 days a year, or a thriving area a few blocks/miles away without that.

The reason why it probably isn't done is because businesses would rather be in existing vibrant neighborhoods. Even if the stadium area was thriving, would a business rather be in a thriving area with crazy drunks tearing it up 10 days a year, or a thriving area a few blocks/miles away without that.

Well, I mean.

Well you can likely count on the stadium having a team store on the ground level, and there is apparently a team museum concept that is supposed to be involved in some way. I think the obvious answer is that you have to find retail that makes sense built into the side of the stadium, you can't just throw 15 restaurants around the perimeter and call it a day.

There's a good amount of housing and soon to be even more around Ryan Field.

I think that the Atrium at Lambeau Field was originally supposed to have more stores open year round. As it turned out, there's not much there that's open on non-game days.

I think that the Atrium at Lambeau Field was originally supposed to have more stores open year round. As it turned out, there's not much there that's open on non-game days.

As it turns out, it's green bay...

Well you can likely count on the stadium having a team store on the ground level, and there is apparently a team museum concept that is supposed to be involved in some way. I think the obvious answer is that you have to find retail that makes sense built into the side of the stadium, you can't just throw 15 restaurants around the perimeter and call it a day.

The shops wouldn't need to make any "sense". They would be open to the public everyday, not just game days.

Ideally, the city wouldn't be built around the stadium as much as the stadium would be built into the city.

I think that the Atrium at Lambeau Field was originally supposed to have more stores open year round. As it turned out, there's not much there that's open on non-game days.

As it turns out, it's green bay...

More technically Ashwaubenon.

I think that the Atrium at Lambeau Field was originally supposed to have more stores open year round. As it turned out, there's not much there that's open on non-game days.

As it turns out, it's green bay...

More technically Ashwaubenon.

Exactly.

As one that says to look into the future when planning, I have to look at what is close by. There will be a freeway behind it, a hospital and church taking alot of space near the stadium. There is the old munsingwear building that at present is pretty empty. Busy Washington Ave is kind of a road block to get people living in the Mill Disrict to walk over to that area. There has to be a real concrete plan to get housing and offices near the stadium before that retail will make any sense. You need a critical mass of people there that will walk thru or by the area alot. The only plus I see is the LRT station where there will be people transferring from the blue to green lines in the future. But most of the LRT riders are not going to be frequent shoppers.

One thing that would help draw development south of Washington would be if there was a defined "main street" heading south towards Elliot Park. Maybe with the stadium shifting slightly to the east, hugging 11th Ave S, then Chicago could become the main street connecting to the south. This, along with softening of HCMC's presence at 7th Street, could open up more development.

The shops wouldn't need to make any "sense". They would be open to the public everyday, not just game days.

Ideally, the city wouldn't be built around the stadium as much as the stadium would be built into the city.

I don't understand what your concept of retail is for this stadium. Things like a pro shop or a restaurant or a museum that can be open year-round make sense to incorporate into a stadium. There's no real reason to try to squeeze a CVS into the corner of a football stadium, and even if there was demand for a CVS in the area, there is plenty of alternate space around the stadium that would be more practical for all parties.

I sort of understand it.... it would make it so that for 355/365 days a year, there's very little clue there's a giant stadium because instead of giant walls, there would be storefronts and other uses properly addressing the sidewalk making it feel like a neighborhood street.

One thing that would help draw development south of Washington would be if there was a defined "main street" heading south towards Elliot Park. Maybe with the stadium shifting slightly to the east, hugging 11th Ave S, then Chicago could become the main street connecting to the south. This, along with softening of HCMC's presence at 7th Street, could open up more development.

So another North-South main street that would close off downtown East, like Nicollet/Hennepin do on the west end? That'd be neat, but aside from widening a street, you'd still have to have retail. I'd like to see a small business corridor though that links the trendy and richer north end of this imaginary main street to the poorer/middle-class southern end. Don't forget, Chicago Ave is the "Avenue of Medicine" or something and 3rd Ave is the "Avenue of the Arts" -- two other newer-concept main drags.

I'm thinking less brand and more substance. Not exactly sure how to develop more small-scale development and sidewalk-friendly uses. But yes, I think we need to focus on a few streets to show the potential. Maybe Better Blocks events or things like that. I see this sort of box connecting the adjoining residential districts (Mill District, North Loop, Loring Park, Elliot Park) and it makes sense to connect these neighborhoods to the CBD with great streets. The Vikings stadium is either an opportunity or a threat to this effort.

Washington Ave and Nicollet Mall are both natural main streets. Others include 9th Street and Chicago Ave.

http://www.startribune.com/local/yourvo ... 62771.html

Who would want to live by a football stadium? It’s virtually empty or seriously under-utilized 355 days a year and chaotic for the other 10 days a year. That sounds miserable.

A recent Star Tribune commentary asked the question, “Vikings stadium: Good neighbor or not?”.

Historically, the answer has been not; and based on all the renderings I’ve seen, the answer will continue to be not. Actually, I take that back – the stadium won’t be either a good neighbor or a bad neighbor. Why? Because it won’t really have any neighbors.

While not the final design, the most recent building renderings resemble nothing more than Metrodome version 2.0 – (it looks like someone sliced the dome’s roof to let in some air and then added a glass facade). North of the stadium, there are three city block sized open surface parking lots. To the west of the site, there are what appear to be two blocks of undefined plaza space. There is some green space and a few small building on the east side of the site, but since this space is currently an interstate highway, it’s not really clear what will happen there.

The only neighbors it would inconvenience are those who are already currently inconvenienced by the stadium. It’s likely the new stadium won’t spark new neighbors either. Do Stadiums Bring Development? Usually not.

I’ve written about this and shared these images a lot over the past year, and I continue to do so because I believe they are powerful in visually showing how little stadiums actually help.

If we build it, they will come? This argument doesn’t hold up under even the most modest of scrutinies. The Twin Cities own experiences should serve lesson that large sport and convention center venues do not create a catalyst for development.

[...]

http://www.startribune.com/local/yourvo ... 62771.html