You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
Keep the dome for those 300 other events, and build a Lambeau-like outdoor stadium for the Vikes . . . and the Summer Olympics Opening Ceremonies which require it! Think big!
The replacement must be as user friendly as the current building. The Dome welcomes diverse activities like the shows they hold on the floor and also activities like roller blading Roller Dome, running and Dog Days so it has a town square like feel. I hope the designers take even the simplest of uses like these into consideration when they design a replacement.
Will the new stadium be adaptable for indoor baseball for all the high school and college games? Or will we need to build another indoor/retractable roof baseball arena?
Was just at the dome for Twins fest - the new field is awesome and the roof looks spanking brand new. I don't know what Mr. Maki means by "sports economics" but I don't think it has anything to do with maintaining a pro team. Obviously there are clubs making a lot less money that field competitive teams. What he's talking about is there being a lot of extra money and status for the owners and oher people involved in the football business, like himself.
The Metrodome was a dump from the day it opened. It is no surprise that its lifespan is short. The old adage of: 'You pay for a bargain, you get a bargain' is spot on here. Do it right or let the Vikings move. I am tired of the cheap attitude of Minnesotans when trying to compete against other cities. A nickel tax on alcoholic drinks would do the trick. Is that so hard? yes, we could invest the funds in the homeless, etc., but as a 'big city', we need to consider our competitive position. We lose the Vikes, and it will be ugly.
The Dome never should have been constructed if the lifespan was only supposed to be 35 years. Built at a cost of $56 million, we now need ten to twenty times that to make it seem adequate? Perhaps that is the harsh reality, but it seems totally out-of-whack.
"Completing those cosmetic fixes are not enough to overcome what the Vikings and many state leaders agree is a more significant flaw: The building's design makes it difficult for the team to maximize profits."
And that's the real reason we 'need' a new stadium. The Vikings are profitable, but Wilf doesn't make as much money as some of his fellow NFL owners without corporate skyboxes and luxury amenities. But since there's only eight home games a year, 'stadium economics' won't give him the return on investment if he makes the upgrades himself. So he threatens to move our team if we don't pay for most of a billion dollar stadium to increase his profits. We need to tax the poor and middle class so the wealthy and corporate elites can pay Wilf a fortune to wine and dine in exclusive style during the games. Why would we even entertain such shameless blackmail? Doesn't it bother you that your loyalty to your home team is used against you by your team's owner?
Everyone living in the state should be required to read victorvaughn comments.It's hard to believe so many "fans" can be so duped! This is ALL about a billionaire shaking down a bunch of elected officials who mostly are running scared! I ask you,call his bluff! You'll find him in his 9 million dollar condo out east!
Let some other city make a $1B investment for eight lousy home dates a year. Oh wait, I forgot about the two pre-season games, so that's ten home dates - what a bargain. Do they still have arena league football, I always thought that the Iowa Barnstormers were pretty sweet.
A new stadium would be for the fans and for Wilf as explicitly stated in this article. So, who should pay for a new stadium. Of course, the fans and Wilf and the businesses that profit as a result.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks