It seems like if the NFL is going to browbeat the citizens of Atlanta into paying for a stadium it should produce something aesthetically pleasing? This thing seats 71,000. The Rose Bowl in California, completed in 1922, seats 91,000 and is reputed to be one of the best places ever to watch a game. What am I missing?
Do you just think it's ugly? I kinda like it. As far as stadiums built in the past 20 years go, it's definitely one of the better.
Is your beef with the capacity? I assume that's not a number pulled out of nowhere, but the result of some kind of pro-forma. 'The Rose Bowl ... seats 91,000 and is reputed to be one of the best places ever to watch a game.' These two statements are separately true but unrelated. More capacity isn't always better, from a subjective enjoyment standpoint nor from an objective financial gain standpoint.
If you're against public funding, that's something we can agree on.
The Rose Bowl would seem to be a more enjoyable place to watch a game even though it seats 20,000 more people. Why do you need an enclosed stadium in Atlanta, Georgia, to begin with? Here is the Sanford Stadium at the University of Georgia a few miles northeast of the MB stadium. Similar nearby stadiums would include the University of South Carolina stadium in Columbia, SC, and the University of Alabama stadium in Tuscaloosa, Ala. I don't recall any of them ever having weather issues other than the occasional rain shower. Certainly nothing to justify putting the whole enterprise into an enclosed tomb.
Jan 30, 19 3:39 pm ·
·
Steeplechase
Heck, Bobby Dodd stadium at Georgia Tech is just a few blocks north of the Georgia Dome. My issue was why does the state of Georgia need to own two separate football stadiums blocks from each other?
Well, yes, that is a big turnoff for me. Tampa and Miami both have enclosed baseball stadiums that were widely ballyhooed at their openings and are now thought of as the most dismal places imaginable to watch or play a game. They can't even grow grass on the outfields. This MB stadium has artificial turf also. A lot of colleges, like the University of Alabama, have put in artificial turf only to tear it up and reinstall a grass field. Of course Alabama can grow grass because they have sunlight and massive turf farms a couple hours away on the Gulf Coast. If I had to guess I would say the MB stadium is designed for mega-rock groups like U-2 more than football games.
Jan 30, 19 4:44 pm ·
·
Witty Banter
Considering NFL teams play only
8 home games I would hope alternative uses are being prioritized.
Jan 30, 19 4:52 pm ·
·
tduds
Yeah I almost prefer a stadium that can more-frequently suffice as a large event venue. Gotta imagine that was the design thinking.
stadiums are a cursed building-type it seems. cost a fortune, often fuck up the immediate neighborhood and are underutilized. i think they often get pushed through in large part because it makes the city look good (ie a new icon for the city).
In my first ever internship I worked on an NHL/NBA facility that replaced a perfectly functional arena that was there for better part of the century.
It is all about private boxes. Literally nothing else matters. It's about catering to needs of corporate interests with deepest pockets. Box seats are a literal currency in backroom deals.
Fully roofed stadium of that size is still a spectacle and an engineering feat. It has to be seen. Preferably from a box seat where only royalty get to sit.
It's a tale as old as the Colosseum.
Jan 31, 19 12:28 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Mercedes Benz Stadium Atlanta
It seems like if the NFL is going to browbeat the citizens of Atlanta into paying for a stadium it should produce something aesthetically pleasing? This thing seats 71,000. The Rose Bowl in California, completed in 1922, seats 91,000 and is reputed to be one of the best places ever to watch a game. What am I missing?
What am I missing?
A cogent thesis statement.
Do you just think it's ugly? I kinda like it. As far as stadiums built in the past 20 years go, it's definitely one of the better.
Is your beef with the capacity? I assume that's not a number pulled out of nowhere, but the result of some kind of pro-forma. 'The Rose Bowl ... seats 91,000 and is reputed to be one of the best places ever to watch a game.' These two statements are separately true but unrelated. More capacity isn't always better, from a subjective enjoyment standpoint nor from an objective financial gain standpoint.
If you're against public funding, that's something we can agree on.
The Rose Bowl would seem to be a more enjoyable place to watch a game even though it seats 20,000 more people. Why do you need an enclosed stadium in Atlanta, Georgia, to begin with? Here is the Sanford Stadium at the University of Georgia a few miles northeast of the MB stadium. Similar nearby stadiums would include the University of South Carolina stadium in Columbia, SC, and the University of Alabama stadium in Tuscaloosa, Ala. I don't recall any of them ever having weather issues other than the occasional rain shower. Certainly nothing to justify putting the whole enterprise into an enclosed tomb.
Heck, Bobby Dodd stadium at Georgia Tech is just a few blocks north of the Georgia Dome. My issue was why does the state of Georgia need to own two separate football stadiums blocks from each other?
That is incorrect. The best place to watch a game is here:
So the objection is that its enclosed?
Well, yes, that is a big turnoff for me. Tampa and Miami both have enclosed baseball stadiums that were widely ballyhooed at their openings and are now thought of as the most dismal places imaginable to watch or play a game. They can't even grow grass on the outfields. This MB stadium has artificial turf also. A lot of colleges, like the University of Alabama, have put in artificial turf only to tear it up and reinstall a grass field. Of course Alabama can grow grass because they have sunlight and massive turf farms a couple hours away on the Gulf Coast. If I had to guess I would say the MB stadium is designed for mega-rock groups like U-2 more than football games.
Considering NFL teams play only 8 home games I would hope alternative uses are being prioritized.
Yeah I almost prefer a stadium that can more-frequently suffice as a large event venue. Gotta imagine that was the design thinking.
stadiums are a cursed building-type it seems. cost a fortune, often fuck up the immediate neighborhood and are underutilized. i think they often get pushed through in large part because it makes the city look good (ie a new icon for the city).
In my first ever internship I worked on an NHL/NBA facility that replaced a perfectly functional arena that was there for better part of the century.
It is all about private boxes. Literally nothing else matters. It's about catering to needs of corporate interests with deepest pockets. Box seats are a literal currency in backroom deals.
Fully roofed stadium of that size is still a spectacle and an engineering feat. It has to be seen. Preferably from a box seat where only royalty get to sit.
It's a tale as old as the Colosseum.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.