Ball 3

I recently wrote a rambling, 2,000 word, mostly critical review of USC’s proposal to renovate the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum. However, it isn’t fair to simply sit back and criticize carefully-thought out plans without giving feasible suggestions. There have been many Coliseum renovation plans presented before, but the vast majority have been entirely unrealistic or too expensive . In addition, previous plans haven’t viewed the Coliseum in the same way that the USC Athletic Department seemingly does - as a historic stadium in need of a general facelift and a few modern amenities. Thus, I set out to create an alternative that accomplishes everything that USC’s proposal does, but in a more aesthetically pleasing and flexible way. *I should note that I’m not an architect. I am someone who has traveled to see approximately 70 professional and college stadiums and who has a near-encyclopedic memory of hundreds of stadiums around the world. My drawings may not be 100% to scale, bu...

*Before I begin this review, it should be noted that my comments are in regards to the renderings and plans released by USC on October 29th. Architectural drawings have likely progressed or changed since this date.* On October 29th, USC unveiled their proposal for a comprehensive renovation of the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum. With an estimated cost of $270 million and a scheduled completion in 2019, USC’s plan would begin a modernization process for the stadium that first opened in 1923. The renovated Coliseum would place a new suite/club tower on the south side of the Coliseum, restore the historic peristyle, replace all seats, add new aisles, and build 2 new video boards in the east corners. In this post, I’ll take a look at the good, the bad, the ugly, and the unanswered aspects of the planned renovation. THE GOOD -The peristyle would be restored to more closely resemble its original design. The peristyle is the most prominent visual feature of the Coliseum, but in r...

This past week, Minnesota lawmakers voted against a proposed stadium for the Minnesota Vikings.   The Vikings current stadium, the Metrodome, has been in disrepair for the past decade or so and the team has been lobbying for a new facility.   Soon after this decision by the legislature, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell flew in to St. Paul to remind them that Los Angeles doesn’t have a team.   That same day, Vikings owner Zygi Wilf’s jet was spotted in LA .   Sure enough, the legislature got a potential stadium deal back on track the next day. The Metrodome after its roof collapsed in a snowstorm There is very little argument against the fact that the Vikings need a new stadium.   However, the NFL is once again exerting its influence to get cities and states to put up public money to aid billion-dollar franchises.   You can’t exactly blame the NFL for this; they are simply doing what is best for the league and its franchises.   But ...

The Minnesota Vikings recently reached a tentative agreement on how their new $975 million stadium will be financed.   Although the deal is still very preliminary and there are many details to be fleshed out, the StarTribune reports that it will look as such: Under the preliminary deal, the city would contribute $150 million in construction costs to the downtown Minneapolis project. The state would add $398 million, while the Vikings would pay $427 million. The city also would pay approximately $180 million in operating costs over the next 30 years, multiple sources close to the negotiations said. With huge numbers getting thrown around, there are bound to be some questions raised.   Why do the Vikings need a stadium that costs nearly a billion dollars?   What benefits does the city get to justify spending tax dollars on a stadium?   And, most importantly, is this deal fair for the taxpayers, the team, and the city? T...