goldy313 wrote:As much as I hate to do it, I'm starting to side with Sid on this. This stadium has FIASCO written all over it. The lot is just to small, look at the drawings and the outfield bleachers, what very few of them there are, go nearly straight up. I want to see an achatect actually fit what the Twins want into that area, artists conceptions are one thing a building that's functionable and meets code is another. My bet is by the end they'll be considerably less than 40,000 seats, I note the comparisons to Wrigley Field. Wrigley Field is small and from what I gather they're trying to fit this into an even smaller lot than that.
You have to remember that in comparison to a lot of other arenas, the same argument could have been made for The X when it was built. Right in the heart of an urban area, on a small footprint (made smaller by the fact that the Rivercentre wasn't moving). The seats in the upper level are what? Nearly straight up. All that does is get you closer to the action and provide better sightlines.
I think it's tough for anybody to really draw too many conclusions - positive or negative - just based on a handful of artists sketches, but all along the process both the Twins and Hennepin county have stressed 3 key points for the park: open air (or for a time, retractable roof), accessibility, and fan accomodations. For whatever it's worth, HOK has designed stadiums and arenas all over the country, and just about everbody raves about them all (Camden Yards, Jacobs Field, PNC Park, and yes - the Xcel Energy Center), so I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and say they'll get it right.