Jump to content

A TDWII Observation - New Stadium? Can't be anything but outdoor...


Recommended Posts

Thoughts on the new stadium and it's form debate.

1) I've got to say...this has got to be the least weather resilient culture in the world. Don't like the sun beating down on your head? Wear a friggin' hat! Too cold? BUNDLE UP! I mean seriously, even when it does get cold down here, it doesn't get COLD COLD...you know the type of cold that can't be dealt with no matter how many layers you have on. It gets chilly down every so often. Two sweaters and a coat and you'll be more than fine. NFLshop.com has a lot of great gear.

2) As it pertains to the weather here...it's mostly gorgeous in the fall. It wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility to have 8 great weather games outside. Take last year - here were the highs and the amount of precip that fell on the days the Falcons played their home games (info compliments of weather.gov).

MIA - 84 & 0.00

CAR - 79 & 1.50

CHI - 60 & 0.00

WAS - 76 & 0.00

TAM - 69 & Trace

PHI - 48 & 0.00

NOR - 47 & 0.14

BUF - 57 & 0.00

...we want to get out the outdoors to avoid this????!!!! And last year our schedule was screwy in that we had only 4 home games prior to Turkey Day. But let's get real here...this isn't even close to being bad weather. In ONE game did the high temperature exceed 80!!! That's unbearable?

3) If there is on thing the Atlanta sports fan has proven itself to be, it's fickle. You can't necessarily blame a fan for being fickle particularly as it relates to product value. But you get what you sow. And if the cost of a retractable roof is estimated to be in the $100M range (which I believe I've read in earlier articles on the subject)...then that translates to an average cost of about $1500/season ticket. So a family of 4 would have to cough of six grand for the right to buy tickets that they've already been buying. How many fans do you think you tell the Falcons to piss off? A lot of them.

Blank is no dummy - he's seen the fair weather nature of this city first hand; 1) first when Vick broke his leg and 2) when Vick broke our hearts. He absolutely knows a PSL structure will not fly in this city. And since the city of Atlanta has never helped to construct a football only facility EVER (the Dome was many things - most notably an Olympic carrot)...Blank knows that he simply won't break the bank on any type of public financing. To date, he's simply played the nice partner and cultivated a solid relationship with the civic leaders and governing bodies to which he is beholden. But he knows his time is coming and his patience will pay off. But not with pots of gold...but rather what the city can provide.

4) I've seen some referrals to University of Phoenix being presented as an ideal example as a 'best of both worlds' scenario. Well, a couple of facts about the stadium and Phoenix in general...

a) That's not outdoors...it's a hole in a roof. I don't consider myself outside when I drive with the sunroof open.

b*) The roof is actually necessary. In September of 2009, do you know how many days the temperature exceeded 90 degrees? 30! That's all of them. The high for the month was 107. In October, the average high was 86.4 with 9 days exceeding 90...and a high on 10/17 of 102!!!

...so let's not compare Arizona's needs with ours. In AZ, the weather WAS keeping fans away from the game. Here, only apathy does...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I had spent a good bit of time researching historical weather data 5 years back, I got tired of compiling so i'll just break it down like this.

The only good reason for an open air stadium is the likelyhood of lesser or no PSL's.

The high temperatures listed are misleading. On field/seating temperatures are much higher. The 1 oclock games are going to be scorchers. I remember a few years back the onfield temp at Texas stadium was something like 112.

Read this article.UA researchers measure temperatures in stadium

An excerpt:People know they are going to be uncomfortable when they go into a stadium. That's definitely an expectation, said David Brommer, a climatology professor in the UA geography department. Numbers might not mean that much to people, but for emergency responders they'll know it's not just hot, but it's a situation where you might need to be aware that there is a perfect storm of conditions.

If the data pans out, it's possible that Brommer, who provides forecasts for UA athletic events, could help the university issue a heat index warning for the stadium on certain days, alerting fans to drink more and paramedics inside to have water at the ready for those prone to heat-related medical problems.

This is a study mostly for the fans, Brommer said.

Athletes can handle it, he said. Fluctuations on a nice day aren't going to have much influence on an athlete as opposed to a regular person who might not be in that good of shape.

If i'm paying money and good money for seats, I want to be comfortable.

Then go with the complete "polar:P" opposite with the colder weather games when its rainer, and historically its much rainer in November and December add in wind to get the windchill factor and you have some more uncomfortable opportunites.

I wonder if anyone would go to their dentist in the middle of summer and the office AC is out. I doubt it. I may be in the minority but I like ideal conditions for anything that I spectate. Am I spoiled to the Dome? Probably, but its the experience that i'm accustomed to. I like the fact that in a Dome I know 8 games are going to be exactly how I like it. I'm not compromising my game day experience because of the elements.

So if no PSL's are involved give me a Dome.

Wear a friggin hat to cool off from a heat index of 90+ with 70,000 plus fans. Get real

I just love how people think they can tell others how to enjoy something that they arn't paying for.

Edited by ltstorm2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is only one attribute to recommend an outdoor stadium: All else equal, it's cheaper to build than a domed stadium (which is cheaper to build than a retractable roof stadium.)

As for the SuperFans who rhapsodize about the joys of an outdoor stadium and are (allegedly) unafraid to confront the hot sun, cold winds, and drenching rains: OK, but why would you want to?

Consider the conditions for the Eagles-Falcons game, played on December 14, 1997 at the Georgia Dome (which the Falcons won 20-17):

---Conditions outside Georgia Dome at kickoff:

------Temperature: 33˚ F.

------Wind: 25-30 MPH, gusting to 40+

------Rain: Steady drizzle throughout the morning and afternoon

---Conditions inside Georgia Dome at kickoff:

------Temperature: 74˚ F.

------Wind: 0 MPH

------Rain: None

OK SuperFans, tell me how you would have just loved to attend the game in the great outdoors that day. I can hardly wait to read the responses.

(Why I recall the weather that day is because I remember listening to the radio giving the miserable conditions as I drove to the MARTA station, walking from the station to the Dome, considering the weather, and thinking to myself, "The Georgia Dome is worth every cent.")

I'll be blunt: Anyone who claims to prefer an outdoor stadium – in all conditions – to an indoor one is someone I really have to question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TDWII, I agree with you wholeheartedly. To me, it is not a question of whether the new stadium should have a roof or not. The weather in Atlanta is not so severe. The question is whether the city should help pay for a new stadium at all. The list of services and jobs that have to be slashed in this economic down turn is long and painful. It makes no sense to help Mr Blank build another cathedral to football. Heck, the city of Atlanta needs to invest in a real subway system, true pedestrian boulevards, parks, fountains and other cultural attractions before it sinks hundreds of millions of dollars into a football venue. The city of Atlanta needs to strengthen its tax base.

The argument that a football stadium brings jobs is flawed. Every other investment that I mentioned attracts more people and dollars to the local economy than a football stadium. Atlanta needs more tax paying inhabitants. To get them to live in the city, the city must be an attractive place to live. Building a new stadium will not attract more residents. Building and maintaining a good school system, modern transportation, and living environment will attract residents.

I am a long time Falcon fan. I have followed them for more years than I care to admit. I want them to succeed and I want Mr Blank to turn a profit. However, I don't believe that we should build a new stadium every thirty years. That is ridiculous......make that insane.

We want to keep the Falcons. The city does not want Blank to take his team and move them to another town. So, why not supplement Mr Blank with a reasonable sum every year? How much more would he make every year with luxury suites and PSL's? Is it fair to say that he could make another five million annually? Heck, the city could pay him twice that much. It would be cheaper to pay Mr Blank $10 million per year to keep him satisfied. He could put the surplus five million/year towards smaller renovations and maintenance.

Atlanta needs to invest in its future. It needs to upgrade its educational system (among the worst in the nation), it needs to attract residents, and it needs to invest heavily in a mass transit system. Building a new stadium should be the least of its concerns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is only one attribute to recommend an outdoor stadium: All else equal, it's cheaper to build than a domed stadium (which is cheaper to build than a retractable roof stadium.)

As for the SuperFans who rhapsodize about the joys of an outdoor stadium and are (allegedly) unafraid to confront the hot sun, cold winds, and drenching rains: OK, but why would you want to?

Consider the conditions for the Eagles-Falcons game, played on December 14, 1997 at the Georgia Dome (which the Falcons won 20-17):

---Conditions outside Georgia Dome at kickoff:

------Temperature: 33˚ F.

------Wind: 25-30 MPH, gusting to 40+

------Rain: Steady drizzle throughout the morning and afternoon

---Conditions inside Georgia Dome at kickoff:

------Temperature: 74˚ F.

------Wind: 0 MPH

------Rain: None

OK SuperFans, tell me how you would have just loved to attend the game in the great outdoors that day. I can hardly wait to read the responses.

(Why I recall the weather that day is because I remember listening to the radio giving the miserable conditions as I drove to the MARTA station, walking from the station to the Dome, considering the weather, and thinking to myself, "The Georgia Dome is worth every cent.")

I'll be blunt: Anyone who claims to prefer an outdoor stadium – in all conditions – to an indoor one is someone I really have to question.

An example from 12+ years ago to justify a Dome? Let me get my Amy Poehler and Seth Myers hat on...wait for it...REALLY?

Listen, obviously being outdoors will present an inclement weather days every so often. But if I'm looking at last years data, there isn't a day there IMO that I wouldn't trade for being outdoors. Fact is, the people that prefer the Dome are worrying about the 10-15% of the time (if that)...versus the 85-90%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had spent a good bit of time researching historical weather data 5 years back, I got tired of compiling so i'll just break it down like this.

The only good reason for an open air stadium is the likelyhood of lesser or no PSL's.

The high temperatures listed are misleading. On field/seating temperatures are much higher. The 1 oclock games are going to be scorchers. I remember a few years back the onfield temp at Texas stadium was something like 112.

Read this article.UA researchers measure temperatures in stadium

An excerpt:“People know they are going to be uncomfortable when they go into a stadium. That's definitely an expectation,” said David Brommer, a climatology professor in the UA geography department. “Numbers might not mean that much to people, but for emergency responders — they'll know it's not just hot, but it's a situation where you might need to be aware that there is a perfect storm of conditions.”

If the data pans out, it's possible that Brommer, who provides forecasts for UA athletic events, could help the university issue a heat index warning for the stadium on certain days, alerting fans to drink more and paramedics inside to have water at the ready for those prone to heat-related medical problems.

This is a study mostly for the fans, Brommer said.

“Athletes can handle it,” he said. “Fluctuations on a nice day aren't going to have much influence on an athlete as opposed to a regular person who might not be in that good of shape.”

If i'm paying money and good money for seats, I want to be comfortable.

Then go with the complete "polar:P" opposite with the colder weather games when its rainer, and historically its much rainer in November and December add in wind to get the windchill factor and you have some more uncomfortable opportunites.

I wonder if anyone would go to their dentist in the middle of summer and the office AC is out. I doubt it. I may be in the minority but I like ideal conditions for anything that I spectate. Am I spoiled to the Dome? Probably, but its the experience that i'm accustomed to. I like the fact that in a Dome I know 8 games are going to be exactly how I like it. I'm not compromising my game day experience because of the elements.

So if no PSL's are involved give me a Dome.

Wear a friggin hat to cool off from a heat index of 90+ with 70,000 plus fans. Get real

I just love how people think they can tell others how to enjoy something that they arn't paying for.

So this article is saying that on a day where the temperature was 72 degrees, it was 80 on the field. However, by the end of the game, the temperature had lowered to a 'cool 53 degrees'.

GET ME OUTTA THERE!!!! My god, how could those fans stand such an awful gameday watching experience.

Seriously...we make it seem like an outdoor sporting event is such a rarity in Atlanta but people go to Braves games all the time in the dead of summer - sometimes even in the middle of the day.

Seriously...tell me at what point last season based on data I didn't get tired of compiling, not stuff that exists in your research that you didn't care to share when the HI would have exceeded 90? Perhaps that opening game? That's it...!

If you'd like to watch the game in comfort...get an HDTV. As for me, a season ticket holder of 4 seats for 9 seasons who considers those 8 days of the year among the best days of the year and not a trip to the dentist office, I've earned the right to express my view. I have certainly paid for it.

I mean seriously...dentist office in the middle of summer. Make an apples to apples comparison for christ sake... :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been going to games since the 70's and used to work there as well and i have to say when the ball park is hot it is **** hot when its cold it is friggn **** cold and when its wet well ya know and for every 1 fan that says we need an outdoor stadium"no big deal thats how football is supposed to be played etc" there is like 100 that would say sorry umm no i want the comfort of a dome,people pay good money,people have kids,99% of people dont want to deal with the elements (thats why our houses have roofs heating and air condition)so i vote to keep the dome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TDWII, I agree with you wholeheartedly. To me, it is not a question of whether the new stadium should have a roof or not. The weather in Atlanta is not so severe. The question is whether the city should help pay for a new stadium at all. The list of services and jobs that have to be slashed in this economic down turn is long and painful. It makes no sense to help Mr Blank build another cathedral to football. Heck, the city of Atlanta needs to invest in a real subway system, true pedestrian boulevards, parks, fountains and other cultural attractions before it sinks hundreds of millions of dollars into a football venue. The city of Atlanta needs to strengthen its tax base.

Fact of the matter is though, that none of these things have happened without Atlanta truly having to invest in the sports stadiums and arenas. When you say Atlanta needs to do all of these things...this has been the case for decades, no? Sure, we got a surge of building infrastructure when the Olympics were on the horizon, but that was now 14 years ago and MARTA still sits short of N. Fulton with no expansion post Olympics. The major cultural attraction that has opened in the last 10 years was pretty much privately financed (Georgia Aquarium).

The argument that a football stadium brings jobs is flawed. Every other investment that I mentioned attracts more people and dollars to the local economy than a football stadium. Atlanta needs more tax paying inhabitants. To get them to live in the city, the city must be an attractive place to live. Building a new stadium will not attract more residents. Building and maintaining a good school system, modern transportation, and living environment will attract residents.

I don't really see how those things you mentioned are related to the Falcons though? When you say that the school system is amongst the worst in the US (lower down)...that's the responsibility of elected officials. The reason we are at this stage has 0% to do with the Falcons...so why now does the reasoning hold true that if Atlanta invests in the Falcons, it would take away from investments in the school system?

At the end of the day, the Falcons signed a lease with the Dome Authority and Blank has honorably stood by that lease and paid off bond issues according to the original agreement. The city has made alot of money off the Falcons and off the Dome. If they didn't invest those funds properly, that's on the city of Atlanta. But now, the end of that agreement is in sight and it's come time to re-open discussions and Blank is a much savvier businessman than the Smith's ever were and will most definitely enter into a more favorable deal for himself. He's stated that his first choice and preferred partner is the GWCC and the city of Atlanta...but he's not obligated to go in that direction. If GWCC and Atlanta want to claim austerity, Blank will finds other partners which will provide no income to local and state municipalities.

I am a long time Falcon fan. I have followed them for more years than I care to admit. I want them to succeed and I want Mr Blank to turn a profit. However, I don't believe that we should build a new stadium every thirty years. That is ridiculous......make that insane.

We want to keep the Falcons. The city does not want Blank to take his team and move them to another town. So, why not supplement Mr Blank with a reasonable sum every year? How much more would he make every year with luxury suites and PSL's? Is it fair to say that he could make another five million annually? Heck, the city could pay him twice that much. It would be cheaper to pay Mr Blank $10 million per year to keep him satisfied. He could put the surplus five million/year towards smaller renovations and maintenance.

Atlanta needs to invest in its future. It needs to upgrade its educational system (among the worst in the nation), it needs to attract residents, and it needs to invest heavily in a mass transit system. Building a new stadium should be the least of its concerns.

PSL's are an upfront cost not an annuity...so the per year comparison or scenario is not viable really. But in your example, you talk about spending $10M/year to just give to Blank. Assuming a stadiums shelf life is 30 years - that's $300M you are proposing to give to one man. To assume that he would spend his money in a certain fashion is misguided. IMO, your vantage point assumes that Blank has no other partner by which he can build a new stadium via. This simply isn't the case. Those options have been backburnered for now...but rest assured, if negotiations start going south, you will hear more of and from these options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atlanta builds an open air stadium and he awarded a future SB, you really don't think

they will having problems filling it, regardless of weather conditions, do you?

I am not sure where you are going with that, I was just saying that you can't predict weather and it is nice to be able to control that situation. Like the year the Superbowl was here and the weather was TERRIBLE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about that year the Superbowl was here? The ability to compensate for Mother Nature is a plus.

For the record, that game was hosted on January 31. We are going to base our compensating for Mother Nature on times of year when regular season football isn't taking place?

As for attracting future SB's...we have not been able to do that since 1999 even with a Dome. This shouldn't even come close to entering our thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure where you are going with that, I was just saying that you can't predict weather and it is nice to be able to control that situation. Like the year the Superbowl was here and the weather was TERRIBLE.

Really don't have a ax to grind here. Lets say they are two sides to this debate -

A. Folks who like the controlled weather conditions that an closed dome/retractable

roof would bring, albeit at a much higher cost, possible PSL's.

B. Folks who enjoy attending 8 or more home games under natural elements.

I've done both and prefer b.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that was just an example I used because it is easy to remember for even the most casual fan. My point is very simply that we can have the opportunity to do everything we want with a dual roof dome.

Can we afford it? I don't know. I'm not the city planner nor am I covering the high cost of producing a state of the art facility. What I do know, and you don't need to be a genius to figure out, is that in a perfect world if we can get both then lets get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that was just an example I used because it is easy to remember for even the most casual fan. My point is very simply that we can have the opportunity to do everything we want with a dual roof dome.

Can we afford it? I don't know. I'm not the city planner nor am I covering the high cost of producing a state of the art facility. What I do know, and you don't need to be a genius to figure out, is that in a perfect world if we can get both then lets get it.

Yes sir, the best of both worlds, roof open when the weather is good and closed when

it's not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thoughts on the new stadium and it's form debate.

1) I've got to say...this has got to be the least weather resilient culture in the world. Don't like the sun beating down on your head? Wear a friggin' hat! Too cold? BUNDLE UP! I mean seriously, even when it does get cold down here, it doesn't get COLD COLD...you know the type of cold that can't be dealt with no matter how many layers you have on. It gets chilly down every so often. Two sweaters and a coat and you'll be more than fine. NFLshop.com has a lot of great gear.

2) As it pertains to the weather here...it's mostly gorgeous in the fall. It wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility to have 8 great weather games outside. Take last year - here were the highs and the amount of precip that fell on the days the Falcons played their home games (info compliments of weather.gov).

MIA - 84 & 0.00

CAR - 79 & 1.50

CHI - 60 & 0.00

WAS - 76 & 0.00

TAM - 69 & Trace

PHI - 48 & 0.00

NOR - 47 & 0.14

BUF - 57 & 0.00

...we want to get out the outdoors to avoid this????!!!! And last year our schedule was screwy in that we had only 4 home games prior to Turkey Day. But let's get real here...this isn't even close to being bad weather. In ONE game did the high temperature exceed 80!!! That's unbearable?

3) If there is on thing the Atlanta sports fan has proven itself to be, it's fickle. You can't necessarily blame a fan for being fickle particularly as it relates to product value. But you get what you sow. And if the cost of a retractable roof is estimated to be in the $100M range (which I believe I've read in earlier articles on the subject)...then that translates to an average cost of about $1500/season ticket. So a family of 4 would have to cough of six grand for the right to buy tickets that they've already been buying. How many fans do you think you tell the Falcons to piss off? A lot of them.

Blank is no dummy - he's seen the fair weather nature of this city first hand; 1) first when Vick broke his leg and 2) when Vick broke our hearts. He absolutely knows a PSL structure will not fly in this city. And since the city of Atlanta has never helped to construct a football only facility EVER (the Dome was many things - most notably an Olympic carrot)...Blank knows that he simply won't break the bank on any type of public financing. To date, he's simply played the nice partner and cultivated a solid relationship with the civic leaders and governing bodies to which he is beholden. But he knows his time is coming and his patience will pay off. But not with pots of gold...but rather what the city can provide.

4) I've seen some referrals to University of Phoenix being presented as an ideal example as a 'best of both worlds' scenario. Well, a couple of facts about the stadium and Phoenix in general...

a) That's not outdoors...it's a hole in a roof. I don't consider myself outside when I drive with the sunroof open.

b*) The roof is actually necessary. In September of 2009, do you know how many days the temperature exceeded 90 degrees? 30! That's all of them. The high for the month was 107. In October, the average high was 86.4 with 9 days exceeding 90...and a high on 10/17 of 102!!!

...so let's not compare Arizona's needs with ours. In AZ, the weather WAS keeping fans away from the game. Here, only apathy does...

So you don't consider 18 degrees with a wind chill factor of 8 cold cold? OK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really don't have a ax to grind here. Lets say they are two sides to this debate -

A. Folks who like the controlled weather conditions that an closed dome/retractable

roof would bring, albeit at a much higher cost, possible PSL's.

B. Folks who enjoy attending 8 or more home games under natural elements.

I've done both and prefer b.

Yeah it is a great experience to go to a game and enjoy the open air I will agree with that. If I could afford to build one myself it would do both is all I am saying.

Football is an outdoor game and you can't go wrong anyway you go that is a fact.

I will say this just because in Georgia as a car salesman I talk about this all the time. I sell many trucks and there is always 2 factions of people who buy them, two wheel drive and four wheel drive buyers. Almost everyone says they never need four wheel drive but when they need it is there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, that game was hosted on January 31. We are going to base our compensating for Mother Nature on times of year when regular season football isn't taking place?

As for attracting future SB's...we have not been able to do that since 1999 even with a Dome. This shouldn't even come close to entering our thinking.

Mr. Blank has already said the reason we can't get another Super Bowl is because of the out of dated Dome. We get a retractable roof, Super Bowls will be back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree 100% with the OP. Football outdoors is a whole different feeling, and to me, it's much better.

I remember standing outside the Georgia Dome before the Washington game on what had to be one of the most beautiful days ever, and thinking what a horrible shame it was we had to go inside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure where you are going with that, I was just saying that you can't predict weather and it is nice to be able to control that situation. Like the year the Superbowl was here and the weather was TERRIBLE.

Well the NFL is about to award the 2014 Super Bowl to New York City, where a snow storm during the game wouldn't be that unlikely, so apparently they are getting over thier thing about the weather.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pointless thread and arguements...Fact is none of us have any control on what type of stadium The Falcons will build, ya'll need to just let it go and focus on 2010 Falcons Football!! Let's see what happens with the Falcons new stadium in the future.

If we only discussed things we get to control on the message board, there wouldn't be much to talk about. Not regarding the Falcons, anyway.

I don't understand people who come into threads to deem them irrelevant. Why not simply refrain from participating in that thread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...