MLS is being discussed right now in the legislature. Question to Bagley: since a lot of people like to watch soccer outside, does this mean it will be a retractable roof?
I turned this on when a friend told me about it, so I missed the beginning. Here is what I gleaned from it. The Sen. Finance committee was talking about the bill. Then Sen. Nienow made a motion to stricken the parts from the bill that gave the Vikes exclusivity to an MLS franchise in the stadium. This meant an extended discussion about soccer while Lester Bagley was testifying. Several senators were excited about soccer. Before I turned it on, I think they were talking about how many people they estimated would come (200k) and how much money. This caused someone to make the above comment about the roof. Bagley didn't really answer the question, but it was pointed out by someone else that the roof is the Vikings' responsibility (if they want it, they pay for it). Also, someone asked about the soccer field on the right hand side of the photo and it is a general area/park that is planned. The soccer field is I think a creative addition, not actually part of a specific plan.
OMG that actually sounds like they are using some planning skills before spending $900,000,000 of our money. Don't tell me a state government in the midwest actually can do good work?
Well it's about time they think about what might happen in the future.
So far all the "stadium plan" has been is just a way (the cheapest one at that) to keep the Vikings in Minnesota. Yet, if you look 10-15 years out (some people might call that "looking out" part of thought -planning) there most likely will be some form of a soccer team that would need a place for 15 -20,000+ fans to watch 20-25 games a year.
Why are they not factoring the impact of those dollars into how the stadium that will last for 30-40 years might be a benefit to more than just the Vikings?
This stadium really does need a retractable roof (i'm not even going to get into the grass issue because I'm hoping it will be retrofitted someday before 2022). Without the open roof and natural weather on the playing field, watching soccer there during the next 30 summers will be done in a low second class soccer stadium, just as bad as watching the Twins play indoors was for the last 30 years...
It might just stop the chances of an MLS team coming to MN because other locals that are better equipped to fight for a team (an open space to build a better soccer specific stadium) would be able to offer a better fan experience to the MLS.
A bad stadium could ruin our chances at getting a team with 20,000 fans for a team that may play 20-25 home games over the course of a summer. It may ruin chances for international friendlies. It may ruin a chance at becoming a World Cup game site in 2026...
By the time they rip down dome #II you will be amazed at what else has been built during that time. 30-40 years that thing will be here as your one and only home for pro sports in Minneapolis/Minnesota. Are you sure that is really good enough? Why is no one in Minnesota asking the questions about what that stadium will be seen as in just 15 years?
Second, think of how old Fenway is. Good design is good design and Dome uno was a child of terrible late 70s/early 80s post-modern architectural awfulness.
*Nothing like barfing tacos and Bender in a dorm shower on a Sunday after a Stars victory. -Hairygrump *Make sure the lids of the paint pots are securely fastened before drifting around corners looking cool. -Ayeready