Why can't we just renovate the Metrodome? (Viking: stadiums, architectural)

[Globe199]

Originally Posted by green_mariner

Maybe I'm nostalgic, but being in a dome feels futuristic. And who says the dome can't be renovated to have a retractable roof like what exists for the Rogers Centre in Toronto?

Yes, the Metrodome structure itself is cool. It IS kind of futuristic. But it sucks for sports. It's not just because it's indoors. The seats are uncomfortable, the rows of seating are too long (god help you if you're stuck in the middle of a row), there is not enough leg room to get past people, etc.

The first row of seating is too high for baseball. There is nothing behind the backstop but a blue wall. Better parks have fan seating at nearly field-level.

If there's a flyball, you will NEVER see it unless you were able to follow it right off the bat. Once it's airborne, forget it. The white roof obscures the ball.

The place was built for football and crudely adapted for baseball.

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by Globe199

Yes, the Metrodome structure itself is cool. It IS kind of futuristic. But it sucks for sports. It's not just because it's indoors. The seats are uncomfortable, the rows of seating are too long (god help you if you're stuck in the middle of a row), there is not enough leg room to get past people, etc.

The first row of seating is too high for baseball. There is nothing behind the backstop but a blue wall. Better parks have fan seating at nearly field-level.

If there's a flyball, you will NEVER see it unless you were able to follow it right off the bat. Once it's airborne, forget it. The white roof obscures the ball.

The place was built for football and crudely adapted for baseball.

Then by all means, renovate it, make it for both sports.

[TimtheGuy]

Originally Posted by green_mariner

Then by all means, renovate it, make it for both sports.

We already have a mint new outdoor baseball stadium, so don't need it for that. The dome is a cheap, stark p.o.s. that is lacking in ALL areas (seating, bathrooms, food & beverage options, luxury boxes, audio & video, etc.) There are no reasons in my book to renovate. Some things are so far gone that it makes zero sense to renovate.

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by TimtheGuy

We already have a mint new outdoor baseball stadium, so don't need it for that. The dome is a cheap, stark p.o.s. that is lacking in ALL areas (seating, bathrooms, food & beverage options, luxury boxes, audio & video, etc.) There are no reasons in my book to renovate. Some things are so far gone that it makes zero sense to renovate.

Why not renovate it, even if only the Vikings will use it?

[moving123456]

Originally Posted by green_mariner

Why not renovate it, even if only the Vikings will use it?

Some of the problems would be almost impossible to fix with just a renovation or the renovation budget would be higher than the cost of a new stadium.

It would probably be very difficult to widen the concourses, add more bathrooms, and add more luxury suites to the existing Metrodome structure.

[Tyryztoll]

My question would remain: How does the University of Minnesota football program - which is (who are) a perennial doormat - get a shiny new stadium before a pro franchise that's been much more competitive, entertaining, and resides within the most popular and profitable sports league on the planet? I mean, if it were Oklahoma, Alabama, USC, I could see it, but the freggin' GOPHERS over the NFL??? Not to mention the additional events, revenue and exposure a new NFL stadium would bring to the TC. Don't get it.....at all.

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by moving123456

Some of the problems would be almost impossible to fix with just a renovation or the renovation budget would be higher than the cost of a new stadium.

It would probably be very difficult to widen the concourses, add more bathrooms, and add more luxury suites to the existing Metrodome structure.

Wouldn't it cost more to demolish it, then build a new stadium?

[phlinak]

Originally Posted by green_mariner

Maybe I'm nostalgic, but being in a dome feels futuristic. And who says the dome can't be renovated to have a retractable roof like what exists for the Rogers Centre in Toronto?

Or Seattle's Safeco Field??

It only makes sense to build a stadium with a retractable dome.

If there is one glaring flaw with Target Field, IMHO, it is the lack of a retractable dome, especially on those really chilly nights or rain-drenching gamedays, which will inevitably happen.

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by phlinak

Or Seattle's Safeco Field??

It only makes sense to build a stadium with a retractable dome.

If there is one glaring flaw with Target Field, IMHO, it is the lack of a retractable dome, especially on those really chilly nights or rain-drenching gamedays, which will inevitably happen.

That is one major flaw. I was never happy about the Twins moving out of the Metrodome. However, why Target Field was built without a retractable roof, it is beyond me.

Safeco Field is alright, but it isn't to me what the Kingdome was.

[moving123456]

Originally Posted by green_mariner

Wouldn't it cost more to demolish it, then build a new stadium?

How would they add all of the things listed above without demolishing the current concrete structure? The current concourses are as wide as the space between the current inner and outer stadium walls. There is no point in renovating if every piece of the stadium needs to be demolished anyway for the "renovation" to start.

Target Field seats 24,607 less people, but has 219 more toilets. I don't think the Metrodome has the plumbing or space for more bathrooms either.