Pete Grathoff's article in the paper this morning... MLS narrows stadium choice to three cities All I want to know is, what happened to Lenexa...
well done... pick the 3 that are the furthest away. i hope the designers don't just copy what dallas did. meaning, i hope there's some character in it. model the complex like frisco, thumbs up to that, but make the stadium our own.
agreed its a good model but it lacked some style points, dont get me wrong i like big slabs of concrete but....
Priority #1: Keep the team in the KC area. Once that's accomplished, we can work on getting the taxpayers to pay for the next soccer stadium to be built downtown 25 years from now.
I hope that they change it some too. While Dallas stadium is nice, I'd like KC to do some things different
I think Bridgeview would be a better model to build from for the actual stadium. Seems like they have everything listed that PHP has, including a better setup for their stage (the ability to put bleachers on it for games rather than just being a blank slab of concrete) and a sweet facade with the brick. I would guess that the Dallas comparison is mainly due to the presence of the field complex like KC will have.
Dallas puts bleaches on their stage. Actually, I expect to hear more whining about Bridgeview than any of the SSS built so far. Namely the front row seats. People on BigSoccer whine about the "high walls". Well, the front row is 18 inches above the field in Bridgeview. Once people realize that they're paying top dollar to look at the back of my bald head, the whining will start. Especially about how "crappy it looks on TV with nobody in the first 5 rows" on non-sellouts.
Having been to PHP twice, the HDC and CCC countless times, I think I may actually prefer PHP to the other two. The HDC really is a jewel, but there's an intangible feel walking the concourse at PHP that I don't get at the other two.
It'll still look better than the gray walls surrounding PHP's field. Seriously, it looks like a high school stadium with the exposed concrete running around the entire thing. I keep hearing they're going to do something with it, but give me 18 inches and a view blocked occasionally by a photographer or player rather than 6-8 feet of clearance anyday. I've heard you touch on this before, and I think people will still like being closer to the action than not. It might be worse for you though. I could also really do without the stage, but I know that's there for different reasons.
I agree with your preference for PHP's concourse. But the seating bowl at HDC...are you kidding me? One of the best stadiums I've been to, anywhere in the world. Also, folks, I wouldn't get too worked up over any stadium descriptions out there at this point. Until the exact site and budget are finalized, anything is, basically, conjecture. I'm sure that these were the best three offers received, and by a substantial amount. The Overland Park site was *never* going to happen...the land acquisition costs were just too high. The Leawood/KCMO site, besides being a tad too small, was much more complicated in terms of public financing.
Hadn't noticed the seats there before, just the crappy Click 5 performance. I understand your point about the low first row. My main point, however, was the aesthetics of the two stadia. I guess it's really just my personal preference, but I LOVE the brick that Bridgeview will have. Comparison: Bridgeview: PHP: Really though, ANY stadium is better than NO stadium. So maybe I'll just shut up now. In case anybody interested, one of the Fire fans took some pics at Bridgeview this week and posted them here: http://www.kenn.com/soccer/bridgeview/ Looks AWESOME.
Lenexa is the one that people were wondering about. Also, since this is just conjecture, can someone build a roof with a lower angle to the fans if not a flat roof entirely? The roof at HDC, and from what it looks like Bridgeview, both have a roof that is high above the top row of stands, and then angles up. The closer that roof is to the stands all the way across, the more intimate the enviroment. Too much sound escapes from the HDC.
except that in England people push back in rows when they can so they don't have to be in the front few rows, I know once someone posted a picture of I believe a Convey goal and you could see the front 10 rows are empty because it's right on field level. I don't think people are gonna want to pay money to have their view of the play blocked by a photographer.
I've been at grounds where this happens. I was just expressing preference for one over the other. Obviously, the ideal thing would be to find a compromise in height, or lower the field around it with troughs for photographers, but I still think that the lower seat level will be seen as a plus for the atmosphere compared to stadiums built without them.
Considering how lawsuit-happy this country is (and my best friend's a lawyer), what do you think would happen the first time a player finds himself head-first into one of those troughs?
Okay. I've been convinced. If I could just watch the games at Arrowhead that'd be fine. People will always have an excuse for not doing things right. Why haven't we seen lawsuits in Houston over that thing in centerfield?
Jeff, I never said we shouldn't do it... and as far as that hill with flagpoles in center field for the Astros? I'm guessing someone hasn't gotten themselves injured seriously enough. *shrugs*
Well I saw a player fall into a photographer trough when I watched West Ham play Crewe when I was in England, the guy went over the billboard and into the pit. Thankfully one of the stewards was in the pit at the time and helped catch him but he still left the game. Not saying the troughs aren't good, but they do happen.
I've seen basketball players go flying into the stands just about everygame. Arena Football. Hockey. All more dangerous.
Have you ever seen a basketball game at Williams Arena at the University of Minnesota? It has a raised floor. I don't know if any player has been injured going over the edge, but I'd be surprised if no one has.