This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article. Comments on this page are closed. To find the current version of the article with updated comments, click here.
May 01, 2012
Minnesota GOP: Wait, why are we building Vikings a roof again?
As pushback goes, it's small-scale, but it's still a sign that the delay in the Minnesota Vikings stadium bill could be shifting the momentum somewhat to critics of the deal: Minnesota Republican leaders are reportedly floating the idea of building a cheaper, "roof-ready" stadium instead of the $1 billion retractable-roofed model that has been pushed so far. No one's talking publicly right now, but the scuttlebutt is loud enough that stadium bill sponsor Sen. Julie Rosen ("It's worth taking a look at") and Gov. Mark Dayton ("[it] doesn't make sense in a rational or viable way") felt obligated to chime in.
Omitting the roof would probably mean that the stadium wouldn't be able to host Final Fours or Super Bowls, but that could be a worthwhile tradeoff for saving the $200-300 million that a roof is expected to add to the price tag. And the Vikings owners themselves have in the past said they'd be okay with a roofless stadium, so it's a worthy topic for debate as the legislature considers how to find the hundreds of millions of dollars the team is asking the public to ante up for the new building.
Of course, taxpayers would still be on the hook for close to half a billion dollars, so it's not like a roofless stadium will immediately resolve the issues of how to pay for one, or of whether it's a good use of public money. But it's a sign that the discourse is shifting from "How should we build this stadium?" to "What should we build, anyway?", which is potentially a tectonic shift in stadium debates. Add in that it only seems to be creating more acrimony between the state GOP and the Democratic governor — though admittedly, at a moment where the two are locked in a budget battle where acrimony is already the name of the game — and this one bears close watching.
This should cost no more than $400 million, period.
Why not just tear down the roof at the Metrodome and renovate the concourses and add suites? It's a football stadium. If skyscrapers and the University of Michigan can renovate their ancient facilities, then certainly the Metrodome can be renovated too.
Posted by Roger C. on May 1, 2012 04:44 PM
I find it amazing that Pittsburgh built two beautiful stadiums (PNC Park & Heinz Field) for roughly $650 million (adjusted with inflation to 2012 dollars), and now some teams think they can't build even one for less than a billion. Unbelievable.
Posted by EVG on May 1, 2012 05:51 PM
We wants it, we needs it. Must have the precious stadium roof. They stole it from us. Sneaky little legislators. Wicked, tricksy, false!
I find it amazing that I could pump gas for roughly $1.98/gallon (inflation adjusted) on the day Heinz Field opened and now I can't.
Posted by Ben Miller on May 1, 2012 08:56 PM
The Republican option also changes the funding for the new stadium from electronic pull tab gambling run by charitable organizations to state bonding to cover costs the state would be responsible for. ($200-300 million)
Posted by Mr. Hill on May 1, 2012 10:06 PM
Ben,
That obviously isn't the same. Stadium costs don't only increase due to pressures of supply and demand, like gasoline--they increase because owners demand "state of the art" as if it is some sort of fixed and essential requirement. And they increase because there is no constituency interested in containing costs.
A football stadium in Minnesota doesn't "need" a moveable roof, or an enormous video board to provide a venue for a football game to take place. I'd say the Pittsburgh question is a fair one--why would a stadium in Minneapolis cost double the Pittsburgh stadium? Could be interesting to find out.
Posted by GDub on May 2, 2012 05:47 AM
Where did all of this talk about a retractable roof come from?
The current plan:
"-- The new stadium would have a fixed roof, with an option to go retractable "without any increase to the funding provided by state or city." That would seem to suggest that if the Vikings want a retractable roof, they'd have to pay for it."
www.startribune.com/politics/blogs/141066343.html
It is $1 billion for a fixed roof. A retractable roof has not been "pushed so far."
Posted by Dave Ubanks on May 2, 2012 12:59 PM
GDub,
Oh really, doctor? The increase in the price of commodities and the increase in the price of gas are "obviously not the same". It sounds like you qualify as an economics professor. (And, no, I am not being sarcastic. I am simply insulting economics professors.)
Posted by Ben Miller on May 2, 2012 01:16 PM
I don't have a chart handy, but the cost of stadiums has been rising steadily for 20 years, while the price of gas has seesawed all over the place - if there's a correlation, it's pretty well hidden. It's pretty clear that the increased price tag on stadiums has to do with what's included in the design, not with how much it costs to gas up the cranes.
And Dave, you are of course correct that the current plan is for a fixed-roof stadium, not a retractable-roofed one. My fingers didn't consult my brain on that one, instead just concluding, "$1 billion? That's gotta be because of a retractable roof!" But, you know, see the paragraph above.
Posted by Neil deMause on May 2, 2012 01:29 PM
Ben Miller, the people behind the construction of these stadiums know there is a sea of taxpayer money to take advantage of. That's why the price keeps going up. Imagine if you wanted to buy a house and the government was going to pay most of it, and you knew there was virtually no price limit? Instead of the Kenmore appliances, you're going to go for the Sub-Zero, Molteni or La Canche, the custom front door and garage doors, long driveway, expensive Italian furniture, silverware, lighting, everything would be first-class, because the taxpayers won't say no. As long as we take that attitude, the stadiums will get more expensive. Ben Miller is kind of sad, because he just doesn't get it. He must get taken advantage of by salesmen. No decent businessman ever justifies higher prices. They fight them. Last I checked, inflation over the last decade has not been astronomical enough to justify such an increase in stadium costs. Do cars cost 4 times more than they did in the last 2 decades?
If the Metrodome was properly maintained and renovated, it would still be a pretty good stadium.
Posted by Roger C. on May 2, 2012 04:56 PM
Roger you aren't staying on message.
The Metrodome is a public entertainment atrocity that is unfit to hold a bingo game in much less an NFL contest. It must be torn down before anyone is forced to spend 1 more second there!
(To be honest the suites are lousy and cramped, and this is why it "is not good". But I don't really see why it is the state's problem that the suites in the Metrodome suck? What does the state care about the revenue from Suite sales? If Ziggy wants more suite money he can pay to renovate them himself. Oh that is right it is not worth it if you have to do it with your own money!)
Posted by Joshua Northey on May 2, 2012 05:49 PM
Neil,
My point was (and is) that inflation-adjusted costs of stadiums built over a decade ago have little to do with the cost of stadiums today. Steel and other materials have increased in price at a rate that out-paces inflation.
The other thing to consider is that a lot of stadiums built a decade or more ago have undergone improvements. If the rise in the cost of materials, the added cost of improvements and inflation are factored in, I would be very surprised if today's proposed stadiums are significantly more expensive than stadiums from ten years ago (assuming the stadium designs are comparable).
Posted by Ben Miller on May 2, 2012 06:25 PM
"Stadium costs don't only increase due to pressures of supply and demand..."
Well, let's just ignore the "only" and twist it into...
"The increase in the price of commodities and the increase in the price of gas are "obviously not the same"."
Then just assume away the primary counter-argument:
"...(assuming the stadium designs are comparable)."
Dude, you're just not trying.
Posted by Keith on May 2, 2012 07:19 PM
Ben,
I agree with you--commodities like cement and steel can increase in price dramatically depending on what is going on elsewhere with construction in the world (especially China).
However, the real problem is that owners state that stadiums "must" have certain things to be "fit" for playing games. Construction of a large number of suites, in particular, drastically increase the complexity and cost of construction, as does having a lot of video display.
The stadium in DC is far less nice than that in Pittsburgh, yet cost far more (adjusted for inflation). I don't understand, particularly in the age of the smart phone, why high-tech video is needed to say which .200 hitter is up to bat. And it certainly hasn't done much to put fans in seats. If Minny chooses to go down this silly path, they'll find the same to be true.
Posted by GDub on May 2, 2012 09:04 PM
A lot of the added cost is less about putting fans in seats than about putting garlic fries in mouths. When Lonn Trost called the new Yankee Stadium "a four-star hotel that just happens to have a ballfield in the middle," he wasn't just talking about grandiose design, he was describing a business model.
About ten years ago, I remember someone (Philip Bess?) estimating that to rebuild Wrigley Field from the original blueprints with today's steel and labor prices would cost under $100 million. Add a bit for inflation since then, but still, most of the cost of new buildings isn't about rising costs, it's that you're erecting facilities with double the footprint and five times the space for restaurants, clubs, etc.
Though high-def screens add a bunch, too. That's where I suspect we get into the "hey, it's not our dime, might as well ask for it" effect.
Posted by Neil deMause on May 2, 2012 09:47 PM