Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop
While I don't share the strong distaste for Soldier Field, on this we can agree - that is a phenomenal stadium. And it should be, as I just saw the estimated development cost, and even given sky-high expectations, I'm flabbergasted.
|
I agree. Probably still over half the of the stadiums, other than the newer stadiums (Atlanta, Minneapolis, LA, Dallas, Vegas, Seattle, Houston) look shlocky aesthetically, both inside and outside compared to Soldier. Many look totally utilitarian, uninspired, unoriginal, and formulaic (Nashville, Charlotte, Tampa, Denver etc). I think the sweep of the lux boxes on the east side of SF actually set it apart as one of the better-looking stadiums. Also while the colonnades and bowl are awkward as hell they still give the stadium a unique and interesting character which is far more than one could say about half the stadiums.
It is simply too small and owned by someone else. That is really the fault of the Bears because their demands were that it be on the lakefront and outdoors. It was not the city that demand they build under 62k. They set the parameters and now they know that those parameters suck.