Downtown Minneapolis neighbors don't want a Dome II

  • Article by: JANET MOORE , Star Tribune
  • Updated: June 28, 2012 - 10:03 PM

Boosters want the new Vikings stadium to spur development - something that didn't happen with the Metrodome in the '80s.

  • 68
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
merkinJun. 28, 12 9:53 PM

The Dome didn't have development around it by design. They didn't want to create two hotel and restaurant districts downtown. So they cut a deal to get the Dome there and not out in the burbs, but nothing else.

Hopefully that won't be the case this time around. We need something besides parking lot eye sores.

rshacklefordJun. 28, 12 9:53 PM

Rybak conceded that "if someone asked you if you wanted to live near a football stadium, they might not say yes. We have to change that." ---- He leads by example so I'm sure he'll move and live next to it, right? This thing's surrounding area will go nowhere unless Rybak and Johnson give more free money away to businesses just to open up around there and create the facade of vitality. Watch out, those two crooks are not done giving away the tax money of the citizens of Minneapolis.

jbpaperJun. 28, 12 9:54 PM

Part of the reason so many parking lots remained is that they can very profitable and that is what people want. To many tailgating is as much fun, if not funner, than the game.

rshacklefordJun. 28, 1210:03 PM

City Council President Barbara Johnson said funding would likely come from "no single entity ... we'll continue to mine every single pot of money out there." ---- Replace the word 'pot' with the word 'citizen' and she will have spoken the truth. But, don't hold your breath as we'll never get the truth from her.

antisuburbsJun. 28, 1210:22 PM

I can see why. Who wants drunk suburbanites screaming "skol!" and puking on their front stoop?

DtrainJun. 28, 1210:22 PM

Arden Hills is still the best place for a new stadium- no one wants to develop in the current location or it would have been done long ago at a much cheaper real estate price. Besides, why tear down a perfectly good building that could be used for so many local high school sporting events? Ridiculous. At least Hubert's gets to keep making money.

teddygJun. 28, 1210:30 PM

Other cities had developers on-board before signing away taxpayer dollars. Even Santa Cruz (SF 49ers) which is at parallel stage to Minneapolis had developer commitments upfront. Here, we have developers so trained to wait it out for tax breaks and city land, that nothing gets done early. Where's all the development that was supposed to go around Target Field? Only one - the Ford bldg - which is owned by Pohlads.

capsule2Jun. 28, 1210:44 PM

An albatros before it's ever built.

PassOut76Jun. 28, 1210:47 PM

Here's a novel idea: Let's institute another city sales tax say 0.2 percent to fund a development committee that will hand out grants to worthy businesses. It's just another little bit folks, really you'll never notice it.

ollie3Jun. 28, 1210:49 PM

Nobody wants to develop near a stadium because they know that 15-20 years in the cycle will start all over again: the stadium is becoming obsolete, the end of the lease is approaching, we want this stadium torn down and replaced (massive interruptions to neighboring business--see central corridor light rail) or a new one built in another part of town/another state.


Comment on this story   |  


Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters