I would suggest that the larger the stadium, the more difficult it would be to pay for itself (unless you want more and more and more subsidy to fill the empty seats instead of people). And it's also quite clear that larger stadium keep most of the fans at too great a distance from the action.
Bigger is NOT better. Just more risky all the way 'round. Andy Driscoll Saint Paul ------ "The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who, in times of moral crisis, remain neutral" --Dante > From: "Clark C. Griffith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Organization: Clark C.Griffith, P.A. > Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 14:05:56 -0600 > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Mpls] A new baseball stadium would be for the Twins, not us > > Mark raises a very valid point. The so called small urban stadium is a > disaster. Stadiums must be larger rather than smaller. 45,000 seat is > the minimum number. This allows the operator to have cheap seats in the > outfield. The small stadiums have huge prices. It costs $25.00 to sit in > the bleachers in Wrigley Field and the Average price in Fenway is now > $39.00. > > Clark Griffith, 7th Ward, Home of WESAC baseball. > _______________________________________ > Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy > Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: > http://e-democracy.org/mpls > _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
