http://www.stadiumjourney.com/news/11-21-2014/890/mls-stadium-experience-rankings Interesting that FC Dallas is ranked so high (#5) and Toronto FC is ranked so low (#7) for the gameday experience. Also strange comment about Stubhub Center (#12) being small when its still the largest SSS... And Red Bull arena is #16! I wonder if its just the bad location that pushed it down.
RBA at 16, two spots below Gillette, makes absolutely no sense. The article even lists like 10 negatives for Gillette and none for RBA.
Well this site (magazine actually) gave Staples Center a 5 out of 5 on atmosphere for Laker games, and Laker games are a freaking library, so I am not sure they know what they are talking about...
So of the top four stadiums, only one was initially built exclusively (or primarily) for soccer? Interesting list.
Well its not really surprising that a more expensive stadium like CenturyLink or a newly renovated for the Olympics stadium like BC place would have things like better concessions and bathrooms then a cheaper SSS. They also take location into account, and Providence and CenturyLink are in great locations.
They said this about Toyota Park: . . . and the natural grass field appears to be kept in excellent shape, a lovely shade of green. This has been a fairly major talking point with Fire supporters. The field is borderline criminal all year. The players have tweeted sarcastic jokes about it, Yallop has complained about it and blamed the village, the US Women specifically noted how crappy it was for their qualifier but mentioned that they were able to play through it. It may have been a lovely shade of green at the end of the year as we suspect they had a larger spray paint budget then sod budget.
My guess is they were kind of remembering the confetti blasts in the south end. I'm not sure about this list, but I do think they got the first two right.
I guess playing surface means jack if Seattle and Vancouver are rated high. Those 2 would be at the bottom for me just for that reason along with gillette.
Everything should go into it. However, it doesn't seem like these guys used any kind of metrics to determine this ranking. Maybe the amount of fun they had at the 1 game they went to.
I agree that the top 3 belong in the top 3, after that....pfft Haven't been to a game at Rio Tinto, but based on what I see on tv, they should be #4.
I've been to away games in Dallas, Chicago, and Colorado. Dallas probably had the best atmosphere and, in my opinion, the prettiest stadium. Chicago is the only one that had a neighborhood. And while the Dallas fans were very excellent to us in the tailgate, Colorado wins that one by a large margin. The Rapids fans gave us so much food and beer and were in general eight thousand kinds of friendly and awesome. So I'm having trouble distinguishing quality of venue/experience from my personal experience in those stadia.
If you've been to RBA, you know its one major drawback--the concourses are so narrow that when the stands are packed, it's almost impossible to move out there at halftime, forget standing in line for food (which you'll be lucky to have by minute 60), you can barely clamber to the bathroom. Complete gridlock. On the upside, the seats are raked so well that a 7-foot tall person could sit in front of you and not obstruct your view.
Every time I see someone rank MLS venues, I just shake my head. Why? Because there is never any kind of methodology to it...it's just based 100% of whatever the person ranking them "feels" (i.e. pulling stuff out of their ass). Are we talking about player facilities? Playing surface? Fan concessions? Sight lines? Supporters atmosphere? Surrounding amenities? Parking? Tailgates? We have no idea what it's based off of. That's generally because people that do this are just fishing for clicks instead of giving it any real thought.
Wonderful sight lines no doubt...not a bad seat in the house...legit upper deck allowing fans to see the game from their vantage point of choice...I need to be above the action in the middle of the field to take it all in though sometimes I think even farther up (I'm in the first row upper) would be better...however I respect the folks who want to sit behind the goal in the upper deck since that may be the best way to see play schematically (but you're so far away from the far goal)... Those are the key things for me...do most of your drinking/eating before the game and key in on the action... Can I get to the stadium from the Bronx...once arriving can I get through the gate to my seats...do I have great seats...is there good fan passion...even if they closed the bathrooms I'd just make it my business to piss before the game and if the above stuff is in order everything would be fine...
Well having been the Wizards you should have known that the fireworks go off in Sporting Park but only in the Wizarding World. They are of course supplied courtesy of Weasley's Wizard Wheezes
I think we should instead get some use out of this thread and make Trip Advisor MLS out of it... --Take CASH to Stade Saputo, you can't get food otherwise, and the ATMs there are a joke. --The red metal seats at Rio Tinto are the worst butt-busters in the league, but the the burrito truck was awesome! --PPL Park had an excellent beer selection when I visited a couple years back, and the tailgating by the river was a blast. --The food at StubHub (HDC when I went) was horrible with no selection, and those dark tunnel-like areas leading to the aisles are just plain bad design. --When I went to Toronto, if you wanted to get there early and drink, you got Carlsberg with a wristband in a roped-off cattle-pen of an area and had to go to the bathroom in a neighboring exhibition hall of the Ontario fairgrounds. Merchandise (jerseys, etc.) in Canada must be 50% more expensive than the US--they were asking crazy prices (USD$120+) in Toronto and MTL.
Stubhub Center food is epic bad. Inexplicable when you consider AEG also runs Staples Center where the food choices make it feel like you are in a gourmet restaurant.
To be fair, each stadium name is a link that connect to its breakdown. They address more things in depth. It's less arbitrary than it all initially looks, though I still find some of their descriptions a little odd.
If you click on each stadium's name, it'll tell you the breakdown of each team's ratings. FCD's breakdown was... Food & beverage: 5 stars Atmosphere: 5 stars Neighborhood: 4 stars Fans: 5 stars Access: 4 stars Return on investment: 4 stars Extras: 3 stars Total (FANFARE score): 4.3 stars Meanwhile, TFC got the following breakdown: Food & beverage: 5 stars Atmosphere: 4 stars Neighborhood: 4 stars Fans: 5 stars Access: 4 stars Return on investment: 3 stars Extras: 3 stars Total (FANFARE score): 4.0 stars One can quibble with the "atmosphere" scores for each -- even I as an FCD fan would probably guess that they caught FCD on a good night -- but not with the return on investment. FCD = cheaper tickets to watch better soccer. Duh.
I see. Clicking through the links actually explains some of the methodology. I disagree with many of the scores but at least the ranking now makes sense. RBA got destroyed by "neighborhood" where the Bulls got 1 star, though I hear that there is some serious development finally happening around the Arena.