«

»

Jan 01

Print this Post

Vikings Stadium 3.0

With the new year, the Vikings’ future home will be the focus of the state legislature, the team and the fans. Especially since we have no post season to look forward to this month. From 1961 to 1981, the Vikings played at Metropolitan Stadium in Bloomington, a cantilever style open air stadium, that was located where the Mall of America is today. During the first 2o years of the franchise, we went to the Super Bowl 4 times. I believe it’s no mystery that we lost all 4 of those. Should we ever forget that part of our history, it wouldn’t be long before a rabid Packer fan would come along to remind us of our complete & utter inadequacy (despite our ownership of the division since our arrival with 18 division titles to the Packers’ 13 and Chicago’s 10… and the lowly Lions’ 4).

In 1982, the Vikings moved to the Metrodome in downtown Minneapolis. One wonders how happy Bud Grant was about losing the psychological edge he used to give the team at the Met with no sideline heaters no matter how cold it got. Since that time, the Metrodome has hosted a Super Bowl (January 1992 – which I watched from Spain in the middle of the night) in which we did not play. It’s hosted an NFC Championship Game that ended our 15-1 season in 1998. The Vikings that have played in the Dome have never been able to duplicate the success of that ruggedly tough wind-whipping prairie team of the 70’s.

With a new stadium, we now have a chance to reset the clock. Whether or not one will get funded aside, what do we want as our new home? A state of the art climate controlled facility like Ford Field? Or, do we want an open air stadium like New Meadowlands? Or is a hybrid stadium with a retractable roof the answer?

The Wilfs have indicated that they don’t need a roof. But they’re asking for some level of public funding for the stadium. No roof means limited use. If the public is going to be funding a portion of this endeavor, I believe a roof – fixed or retractable – must be part of the equation so that the public can use the venue for something other than football. Let’s face it: the football season is relatively short. It’s not worth it to pump public funds into something that doesn’t benefit the city in which the facility is built, and the state, long-term and all year-long.

I believe a retractable roof like the one the Arizona Cardinals enjoy is the best solution. For those who want an open air stadium, a good portion of the home games would be played outdoors. For those who want a roof, as the season turns frigid, fans can watch the game in comfort. Additionally, that retractable roof will allow the facility to be used throughout the year and will continue to draw people to the location to help the local economy.

What’s your opinion?

Permanent link to this article: http://www.vikesprincess.net/2011/01/vikings-stadium-3-0/

2 comments

  1. Kevin

    It needs a roof…retractable or otherwise. Stadium needs to be available to be used by other venue’s besides 10 football games/year to make it worth while.

    1. VikesPrincess (Lisa)

      I agree!

%d bloggers like this: