Lambeau dome ?

[Robert Mason]

Never heard about this.....

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Packer Brother]

Would've been a dumb idea. The lore of Lambeau field is snow, cold, fans jam packed on bleachers.

 

[longtimefan]

Blasphemy

 

[El Guapo]

I swear that I read about this prior to the 2003 renovation. It's not surprising at all that the Packers would at least understand the options available to them. It was merely a feasibility study so basically they just wanted to know how it could look and the cost. I'm sure that even the Packers knew it would have had to be an overwhelmingly compelling argument to convince the fan based to throw a roof on Lambeau Field. Once they had the feasibility study in hand, they could refer to it if angry taxpayers or fans somehow chastised the club for not exploring all of the possibilities. I see this as a CYA situation versus a plausible scenario that was explored.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

Glad it didn't happen. Let's keep the tundra frozen.

 

[jsheim]

I think it will happen in about 20 years. Current upgrades will do for the time being....it all depends on the revenue stream for the Entire complex over time. Eventually they will want to host year-round events that they can't now. It will take a generational shift so 20 years,,,,

 

[HardRightEdge]

Not that dome. It looks like a baggie-style. Retractable would not be a bad idea, but that would be extremely expensive, and all the free cash flow has been going to the entertainment district. I've heard, but have not verified, that the Lambeau foundation or soil conditions could not support a hard roof. Maybe that's why the baggie was noodled around at one point or another. Or maybe that foundation situation predated the renovations and expansions.

A roof gets you: (1) a Super Bowl, (2) juice for the entertainment district and the local economy and (3) it puts Green Bay on the global map. Of course, none of that is important.

 

[Packer Brother]

I hope there isn't a situation where the Packers demand the following: We require certain taxpayer dollars for a roof. Otherwise, we will move the team. I know it sounds crazy. But even the ClevelanD Browns once moved.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

Can you imagine the sheer volume in there ??? No need to pump crowd noise in there like Seattle.

 

[El Guapo]

I've heard that the lack of hotels in the greater vicinity is the biggest deterrent to a SB in Green Bay.

I assume that the foundation and soils could be shored up to support a hard roof. It's amazing what they can do these days. Not that they have a solution yet, but have you heard about the Millenium Tower sinking in San Francisco: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/u...it-against-sinking-millennium-tower.html?_r=0

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I hope there isn't a situation where the Packers demand the following: We require certain taxpayer dollars for a roof. Otherwise, we will move the team. I know it sounds crazy. But even the ClevelanD Browns once moved.

Where would the Packers move? They are publically owned, I could be wrong, but I believe that the way public ownership is held, it would be extremely difficult for the Franchise to ever pull up stakes and move.

As HRE pointed out, a retractable roof would be awesome, but only for other events, lightening storms or Super Bowls that the Packers don't play in. LOL

Let it snow, get cold and play football outdoors where it was meant to be played, Packer style.

 

[Half Empty]

Not that dome. It looks like a baggie-style. Retractable would not be a bad idea, but that would be extremely expensive, and all the free cash flow has been going to the entertainment district. I've heard, but have not verified, that the Lambeau foundation or soil conditions could not support a hard roof. Maybe that's why the baggie was noodled around at one point or another. Or maybe that foundation situation predated the renovations and expansions.

A roof gets you: (1) a Super Bowl, (2) juice for the entertainment district and the local economy and (3) it puts Green Bay on the global map. Of course, none of that is important.

(1) As El Guapo noted, the Super Bowl not being in Green Bay is way more involved than weather. (2) Sure. (3) What does that even mean? Why would the rest of the world care, and what effect would it have on GB?

 

[Robert Mason]

Can you imagine paying $2,000 for a superbowl ticket at Lambeau to sit on a metal bench, packed in like sardines in 10 degree weather ?

 

[Half Empty]

Don't quite follow. Isn't the thread about a SB in GB in a dome?

 

[Robert Mason]

Don't quite follow. Isn't the thread about a SB in GB in a dome?

A dome in not a requirement for a SB. They had a SB in New Jersey in a non dome stadium.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Can you imagine paying $2,000 for a superbowl ticket at Lambeau to sit on a metal bench, packed in like sardines in 10 degree weather ?

Are the Packers playing in it? If they are......sign me UP!

 

[Mondio]

Yes, I can.

 

[mongoose]

U can always defrost that brat and beer when u get home! Its called the tundra for a reason.

 

[Raptorman]

Not that dome. It looks like a baggie-style. Retractable would not be a bad idea, but that would be extremely expensive, and all the free cash flow has been going to the entertainment district. I've heard, but have not verified, that the Lambeau foundation or soil conditions could not support a hard roof. Maybe that's why the baggie was noodled around at one point or another. Or maybe that foundation situation predated the renovations and expansions.

A roof gets you: (1) a Super Bowl, (2) juice for the entertainment district and the local economy and (3) it puts Green Bay on the global map. Of course, none of that is important.

(1) Super Bowl? Will never happen. Not enough hotel rooms available. (2) Won't really bring in the that much. (3) Green Bay is on the global map, ever hear of the "Green Bay Packers".

 

[PFanCan]

"Lambeau dome" is an oxymoron.

 

[Poppa San]

A roof gets you: (1) a Super Bowl, (2) juice for the entertainment district and the local economy and (3) it puts Green Bay on the global map. Of course, none of that is important.

1> as noted there are other reasons a SB will never be in GB besides not having a dome.
2> The Packers already fight tooth and nail against any other use of the stadium. Why would they change if it were a dome? Someone might spill their soda on the astro turf. IMO The GB area built the last two arenas 50-75% too small. (Resch center and Kress Center)
3> Nah. Anonymity keeps the riff-raff away.

 

[HardRightEdge]

(1) Super Bowl? Will never happen. Not enough hotel rooms available. (2) Won't really bring in the that much. (3) Green Bay is on the global map, ever hear of the "Green Bay Packers".

(1) That can be managed. (2) Oh, yeah? Even an ordinary 11th. football weekend is significant. (3) A billion people watch the Super Bowl. Only about 100 million of those are in the US, and half of them couldn't find Wisconsin on a map. Marie Lombardi couldn't.

 

[HardRightEdge]

3> Nah. Anonymity keeps the riff-raff away.

You never know. Some deep pocketed industrialist might like the cut of your jib. Isn't that what people asked for?

 

[HardRightEdge]

Why would the rest of the world care, and what effect would it have on GB?

Image, brand building. It's called free municipal advertising.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I think it will happen in about 20 years. Current upgrades will do for the time being....it all depends on the revenue stream for the Entire complex over time. Eventually they will want to host year-round events that they can't now. It will take a generational shift so 20 years,,,,

The Packers lease at Lambeau Field runs through the 2032 season. It will be interesting to see if the team wants to get a new stadium at that point.