Raising the roof in Minnesota

AP

As pointed out in today’s team-by-team tour of the league (give or take a team or two), Josh Alper pointed out that the new roof at the Metrodome is ready to be inflated.

“Weather conditions permitting, but it looks very positive,” Bill Lester, executive director of Metropolitan Sports Facility Commission, told Tim Nelson of Minnesota Public Radio.

“It’ll take between two and three hours,” Lester said of the new tan-colored ceiling.  “It’s a vast amount of space.  But we have 20 100-horsepower motors, fans.”

The entire roof was replaced after snow tore a hole in the lid last December, forcing the Vikings to play one home game in Detroit and another at the University of Minnesota’s TCF Bank Stadium.

The replacement of the roof cost more than $20 million, most of which was covered by insurance.

The Vikings are due to play their first home game of the preseason on August 27.  The team’s lease at the Metrodome expires after the 2011 season.

32 responses to “Raising the roof in Minnesota

  1. Glad to see you got the squashed marshmallow inflated, bceause you’re going to need that for the next 20 years…

  2. I think Favre will want his bicycle tire pump back after that ridiculous concrete cupcake’s roof get’s re-inflated.

    What a dump. Crazy Vikings fans call our stadium “Lameblow Field”. Right. Yeah. Lambeau Field really blows. But, nice try. Same can be said for Favre during his epic fail Ted Revenge Tour, LOL.

  3. Aaaaand, it’s even uglier than before… along with acoustic panels hanging from the whole thing… GREAT… it’s even more of an eyesore, AND noise dampening, which will reduce the home field advantage at the Dome…

  4. minnesconsin says:
    Jul 13, 2011 10:27 AM
    that explains all the helicopters over downtown this morning. thought they were looking for a killer, you never know here in murderapolis

    ——————–

    Since when was Minneapolis a big crime town? Haven’t been there in a few years and where I hate the Vikings the town is great. Very clean, lots of music and I thought extremely safe. I lived in Milwaukee for years and that town is much more ghetto and the crime rates don’t even compare. I live in Denver now which I feel is a safe city but I would be willing to bet its crime rate is higher than Minny’s. I bet grew up in a small town because Minny is a great city to live in if you can bear the cold.

  5. I’m a Giant fan that had the pleasure to see my team play in Minn. Everything there is GREAT except for that p.o.s. stadium. Minn fans deserve better.

  6. Just as the deflating of the Metrodome was symbolic of the Vikings’ disastrous 2010 season, the reinflating of the dome will be symbolic of the Vikings’ Phoenix-like rise from the ashes to an unprecedented level of success.

  7. thephantomstranger says:
    Jul 13, 2011 12:11 PM
    Just as the deflating of the Metrodome was symbolic of the Vikings’ disastrous 2010 season, the reinflating of the dome will be symbolic of the Vikings’ Phoenix-like rise from the ashes to an unprecedented level of success.
    ____

    Okay, glad to see you vikefans are able to keep your perspective on things. You’re crappy dome gets re-inflated and from that you conclude “Vikings’ Phoenix-like rise from the ashes to an unprecedented level of success.”

    I guess you could be right. If you define “unprecedented level of success” as 3rd place in the NFC North. I think I understand now why everybody hates vikefans…

  8. phantomstranger says:
    Jul 13, 2011 12:11 PM
    Just as the deflating of the Metrodome was symbolic of the Vikings’ disastrous 2010 season, the reinflating of the dome will be symbolic of the Vikings’ Phoenix-like rise from the ashes to an unprecedented level of success.
    _________

    Glad to see that you are all maintaining the proper perspective up there. They reinflated a big balloon, it’s not like they landed a man on Mars or anything…

  9. I can’t help but wonder why in the name of Mike Lynn they even bothered to put the dome back on the stadium. The Vikings have one more year in this cheapo dome, and it’s either a new stadium or a new city.

    Maybe there are a lot of other events that are hosted there besides football games. But even if this place was unusable without the dome, they could have played a year or two at the college field while waiting on a new stadium.

    Can’t help but think this was money NOT well spent.

  10. fwippel says:
    Jul 13, 2011 1:10 PM
    I can’t help but wonder why in the name of Mike Lynn they even bothered to put the dome back on the stadium. The Vikings have one more year in this cheapo dome, and it’s either a new stadium or a new city.

    Maybe there are a lot of other events that are hosted there besides football games. But even if this place was unusable without the dome, they could have played a year or two at the college field while waiting on a new stadium.

    Can’t help but think this was money NOT well spent.
    __________________

    Most of the cost was paid by insurance. The money had to be used to pay for the new roof, not to apply to a new stadium. There are hundreds of baseball games that get played in that stadium every year. They don’t have the option of playing in the college football stadium.

  11. The replacement of the roof cost more than $20 million, most of which was covered by insurance.

    This is for the football guru fans that can’t read(packer fans in above comments)

    Can’t help but think this was money NOT well spent.

  12. tombradysponytail says:
    Jul 13, 2011 12:32 PM
    I think I understand now why everybody hates vikefans…
    ___________

    On the contrary, I think many people find my tongue-in-cheek optimism to be quite winsome.

  13. tombradysponytail says:
    Jul 13, 2011 12:32 PM

    Okay, glad to see you vikefans are able to keep your perspective on things.

    carlgerbschmidt says:
    Jul 13, 2011 1:02 PM

    Glad to see that you are all maintaining the proper perspective up there.
    ______________

    I’m beginning to wonder if Tom and Carl are the same person. Think for a minute. Have you ever seen them together?

  14. to the people still talking about just leaving the roof off and playing that way, this is not a possibility. te stadium facilities are not equipped to operate without a roof. it would not be safe and once the weather got cold the concessions and plumbing in the building will not withstand the cold. it would have cost far more in renovations to the old dump to accomplish this than it did to put a new roof on.

  15. schmitty2 says:
    Jul 13, 2011 12:11 PM
    Target field is a better option than that dump

    Yet another special needs child!!!!!!

  16. Glad to see that you are all maintaining the proper perspective up there. They reinflated a big balloon, it’s not like they landed a man on Mars or anything…

    ————————————
    A packer fan speaking about perspective, is like a nun speaking about sex.

    Neither one of you has had any.

  17. fwippel says:
    Jul 13, 2011 1:10 PM
    I can’t help but wonder why in the name of Mike Lynn they even bothered to put the dome back on the stadium. The Vikings have one more year in this cheapo dome, and it’s either a new stadium or a new city.

    Maybe there are a lot of other events that are hosted there besides football games. But even if this place was unusable without the dome, they could have played a year or two at the college field while waiting on a new stadium.

    Can’t help but think this was money NOT well spent.
    ==================================
    How dumb are you? WHEN they get funding for the new one, it will take a few years to build. They are going to need a place to play…..
    On the outside chance they wind up moving, There is no stadium built in LA!
    So……they are going to need a place to play.

    As has been said before, the money WAS well spent, the insurance money.

    How’s it feel to have posted the dumbest post on this thread?

  18. paulharghis says:
    Jul 13, 2011 6:14 PM
    Glad to see that you are all maintaining the proper perspective up there. They reinflated a big balloon, it’s not like they landed a man on Mars or anything…

    ————————————
    A packer fan speaking about perspective, is like a nun speaking about sex.

    Neither one of you has had any.

    ________

    It’s been my experience that when one speaks of how little s*x others are having, well, I probably don’t have to tell you….

  19. carlgerbschmidt says:
    Jul 14, 2011 11:58 AM
    It’s been my experience that when one speaks of how little s*x others are having, well, I probably don’t have to tell you….
    ______________

    Carl, are you implying that people who speak of how little sex others are having aren’t having it themselves? And this has been your experience? I’m not sure how you could experience how little sex others are having, so I assume you’re speaking from personal experience.

  20. thephantomstranger says:
    Jul 14, 2011 12:28 PM
    carlgerbschmidt says:
    Jul 14, 2011 11:58 AM
    It’s been my experience that when one speaks of how little s*x others are having, well, I probably don’t have to tell you….
    ______________

    Carl, are you implying that people who speak of how little sex others are having aren’t having it themselves? And this has been your experience? I’m not sure how you could experience how little sex others are having, so I assume you’re speaking from personal experience.
    ________

    Actually, if you read it closely, he doesn’t say that at all. In fact, he leaves it completely open-ended. I find it interesting that that is where you immediately went with it.

    He could have meant:

    …you have tons.
    …you’re just a big douche bag.
    …you have it with deb 3-5 times a week.
    …you never have any because you’re too busy trolling pft to attack others.

    As someone who seems to pride himself on correcting the grammar of other posters; you’d think you’d have a little more attention to detail.

  21. Wow, Tom, you’re awfully quick to defend Carl. Now if Carl starts posting ad hominen attacks on Deb, we’ll know the truth.

    And I defy you to find a single comment in which I have corrected the grammar of another poster.

  22. carlgerbschmidt says:
    Jul 14, 2011 11:58 AM
    paulharghis says:
    Jul 13, 2011 6:14 PM
    Glad to see that you are all maintaining the proper perspective up there. They reinflated a big balloon, it’s not like they landed a man on Mars or anything…

    ————————————
    A packer fan speaking about perspective, is like a nun speaking about sex.

    Neither one of you has had any.

    ________

    It’s been my experience that when one speaks of how little s*x others are having, well, I probably don’t have to tell you….

    ================================

    Carl, Carl, Carl….
    Reading comprehension 101:

    I Cannot believe I have to explain it to you.
    I was referring to Nuns not having sex.
    I was referring to you not having any perspective.

    Do you see the correlation?

    Nice try on the psychoanalysis there Dr. Freud.

    Per usual, you are wrong again.

  23. @paulharghis

    Let me know if you want me to explain the difference between a reading comprehension item and a verbal analogies item. I think you might be confused.

    Anyway, time to get back to your grading of SAT essay questions, you could’ve earned another $12.50 if you weren’t wasting your time on pft.

  24. cor·re·la·tion-mutual relation of two or more things, parts, etc.

    a·nal·o·gy-a similarity between LIKE features of two things, on which a comparison may be based:

    Wrong yet again, Carl the gerbil.

    It’ not my fault that I’m smarter than you.

    You could have flipped a lot more burgers instead of making yourself look dumb on PFT.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!