Bank of America Stadium Renovation

[Urbanity]

The Panthers don't need any help in appearing desperate.

On that point, you'll get no argument from me.

[carolinagarnet]

I hope they never change to the Charlotte Panthers. In my opinion it makes the franchise appear unstable and desperate. The Panthers are supposed to be a team for everyone in "The Carolina's" to root for. It's why they have training camp in Spartanburg and not Concord. Also, the original Panther head logo is shaped like the states of NC and SC put together.

Carolina Panthers is becoming an established name in the NFL now, no reason to muck it up.

I always thought they played in Spartanburg because Jerry Richardson went to Wofford.

[southslider]

You're obviously missing the point. We aren't discussing the merits of if the team can afford the refurbish, it's likely they can. Nor are we discussing the teams record, which plays zero factor in this discussion. If you honestly believe the Panthers don't have a dramatic impact on our economy, from ticket sales, to parking, to hotels, to restaurants, to visibility for the city, to merchandise and their sales in local stores, you obviously aren't paying attention.

The point is, IF the panthers ask for city money, and if the city gives money to sports teams based upon the prior premise of "economic impact" (see bobcats and knights) then the panthers are BY FAR the most deserving. Without question.

If people actually think a vote of City taxpayers would go any differently than the failed vote for the arena, they aren't paying attention. Of course, the City can still go ahead and fund it anyway. The same was done with the arena, more recently with baseball, Eastland Mall, and possibly even streetcar. But if the Mayor and Council think taxpayers aren't paying attention, they are truly fooling themselves. Best not to risk future, more dire votes for City infrastructure, just because a losing team now wants new digs.

[ah59396]

^ You are correct that JR went to Wofford. That likely plays a key role. But having the training camp in SC helps to make the team a "Carolina" football team and not a "North Carolina" football team. It's also why they played their first season in Clemson as opposed to say, NC State, UNC or Wake Forest.

If people actually think a vote of City taxpayers would go any differently than the failed vote for the arena, they aren't paying attention. Of course, the City can still go ahead and fund it anyway. The same was done with the arena, more recently with baseball, Eastland Mall, and possibly even streetcar. But if the Mayor and Council think taxpayers aren't paying attention, they are truly fooling themselves. Best not to risk future, more dire votes for City infrastructure, just because a losing team now wants new digs.

Again, the teams record has nothing to do with it. And if you think this city is better off without an NFL football team, it's pointless for me to debate with you because we are in different realms of reason.

[Urbanity]

Way out of left field question here - but is it at all possible that the refurb could include stadium enhancements to allow an MLS team to utilize the stadium as well?

Yes - I KNOW Charlotte is not on the list for an MLS team - and I'm not looking to get into a debate about that. I'm am curious though if there are things that can be done in The Vault to make it a dual team/sport stadium.

[SouthEndCLT811]

Way out of left field question here - but is it at all possible that the refurb could include stadium enhancements to allow an MLS team to utilize the stadium as well?

Yes - I KNOW Charlotte is not on the list for an MLS team - and I'm not looking to get into a debate about that. I'm am curious though if there are things that can be done in The Vault to make it a dual team/sport stadium.

That's a tricky sell as I know MLS wants soccer specific stadiums (SSS) for their new teams. The Sounders play in the Seahawks stadium but they also lead the MLS in attendance around 38K per game. Then you have teams like the New England Revolution playing in Gilette Stadium to 14K per game. I think a Charlotte club would probably be closer to the Revolution than Sounders so the league would probably make it a deal breaker if there wasn't a SSS or renovation of a place like Memorial Stadium in the plan.

[southslider]

Again, the teams record has nothing to do with it. And if you think this city is better off without an NFL football team, it's pointless for me to debate with you because we are in different realms of reason.

I also think this city would be better off with more greenways, which also have good economic return. Still, it's pointless to debate how any item on Charlotte's wish list is needed, when it's how things have been decided and funded that's causing the problem.

And so it's not really the team's record, but Charlotte's, that should be of concern. Another handout for a "nice have" instead of a "must have" only adds to the overall losing battle of abused public trust and escalating taxpayer revolt. That's a game Charlotte is now losing worse than ever before.

[ah59396]

I'm all for more green-ways, I use the one on Little Sugar Creek almost daily. But they bring nowhere near, not even close, to the positive economic impact that an NFL football team brings.

Either way, we are getting off base here. The fact is this city has already set a past precedent that it is willing to spend money on it's sports teams. As I've said before, if there is any franchise in town that deserves it, it is the Panthers as they are also bring the largest economic impact. Arguing about the value of infrastructure versus stadiums is a fair discussion, though not applicable to the statements in this thread. The city does need to get it's priorities in order, I agree.

But turning it's back on the NFL, after helping AAA baseball and the NBA is a bad idea. And losing the Panthers is always a possibility. Ask Cleveland or Baltimore.

[Niner National]

It's also why they played their first season in Clemson as opposed to say, NC State, UNC or Wake Forest.

I think that had more to do with proximity and stadium size.

The Panthers wanted to use USC's stadium, but USC declined, so they went with Clemson instead. Clemson and USC are both closer to Charlotte than Chapel Hill and Raleigh. Wake is the closest to Charlotte, but the stadium only holds like 35,000 people.

Clemson's and USC's hold 80,000ish.

[ah59396]

I think that had more to do with proximity and stadium size.

The Panthers wanted to use USC's stadium, but USC declined, so they went with Clemson instead. Clemson and USC are both closer to Charlotte than Chapel Hill and Raleigh. Wake is the closest to Charlotte, but the stadium only holds like 35,000 people.

Clemson's and USC's hold 80,000ish.

Yeah, that is a good point. Do you know why USC declined?

[kermit]

It was a longgg time ago but I remember something about Sunday sales of alcohol as a major issue in Columbia.

[jednc]

I think that had more to do with proximity and stadium size.

The Panthers wanted to use USC's stadium, but USC declined, so they went with Clemson instead. Clemson and USC are both closer to Charlotte than Chapel Hill and Raleigh. Wake is the closest to Charlotte, but the stadium only holds like 35,000 people.

Clemson's and USC's hold 80,000ish.

I can't remember why USC declined, but you are correct...they did. They were the first choice. Clemson was the backup plan and that worked out pretty well. I think distance and a desire to include SC in the plan is the reason both SC sites were the first choices.

[Skyline49er]

This is obviously just for fun and if money was no issue, but if LA wants the Panthers so bad, they should give something up in exchange. How about Charlotte gives LA the Panthers and Bobcats and in return we get the Dodgers, Clippers, and one of the MLS teams. Just something to think about.

[ah59396]

I'd rather have the Kings and Galaxy. It'd be nice to see a winner in this town!

[kermit]

I'd rather have the Kings and Jessica Alba....

[ajfunder]

^IMHO, I would prefer to have an NFL team rather than both a MLS and MLB team.

[HopHead]

^IMHO, I would prefer to have an NFL team rather than both a MLS and MLB team.

+1 on that!

And if we're talking money being no object, I'd like to have a retractable roof stadium for our NFL team (think Super Bowl bid) with a competent GM that picks the right combination of players and coaches

[Skyline49er]

I am just amazed that we are talking about refurbishing the stadium, crazy how quickly football stadiums seem to antiquate. I'm all for a retractable roof as well, could we host NCAA Final four as well?

[Missmylab4]

From a standpoint of the city . You have to go retractable roof. It put the cities infrastructure on another level to housing events. You definitely could become a regular for final four and Super Bowl etc. With our city's relentless effort for respect, I see this as the only prudent addition that the city could sell to the people as something with a real ROI. Landing either of those events is big time. Also a city owned hotel 1000 room+ would most likely come to fruition. Bringing another skyscraper to our skyline.

[ah59396]

Is it even possible to slap a roof on BOA? Or would we have to build a whole new stadium? I feel like there is more to it than just stringing up some sheets...

A new football stadium is going to cost us at least $750 million.

[HopHead]

^I'm not an architect, so I don't know for sure. I'm guessing it might be doable. I would assume a retractable roof would be possible if you had the necessary supporting infrastructure for it. Then again, I'll let someone with far more expertise than myself answer that.

[Urbanity]

Apparently The Rams are (were?) looking into the same thing. Interesting in that their stadium is 17 years old. Very similar.

http://aol.sportingn...etractable-roof

As for costs - found this interesting report (re: Rams)

Experts cited in the Fox 2 report say that adding a retractable roof to the Dome would require major structural changes, along with a hefty price tag. Estimates predict the potential cost anywhere from $200 to $300 million, just for the roof and retrofitting the Dome.

Needless to say, it figures to carry a higher price tag than the $124 million proposal pitched by the Convention and Visitors Commission. That plan was rejected by the Rams, who then opted to submit their own plan.

A proposal for a new stadium in Atlanta jumped from an estimated $700 million price tag to a $947 million price tag with the inclusion of retractable roof. That plan is still in the initial stages, far from approval.

http://www.turfshowt...ward-jones-dome

Coincidentally the Rams are also a team that is rumored to being poached by LA

[SouthEndCLT811]

Is it even possible to slap a roof on BOA? Or would we have to build a whole new stadium? I feel like there is more to it than just stringing up some sheets...

A new football stadium is going to cost us at least $750 million.

The Browns new ownership group is exploring a dome option as well. The stadiums are similar although the Browns upper deck is more rigid than BOA stadium is.

One proposal was a cap over the stadium that would require fans to still dress for the elements but prevent the elements from getting into the stadium. This isn't going over well in Cleveland where the winter is much colder. However with our milder climate it may work. Also, the main entrances to BOA stadium is more enclosed than those of Cleveland Browns Stadium so it may be realistic to think a dome such as this could sit right on top of the stadium. And with HVAC improvements it could allow the dome at BOA to be kept at more of a temperate climate.

Link to Geodesic dome (video with renderings over Browns Stadium)- http://www.newsnet5....-browns-stadium

Comparison of stadiums:

Browns Stadium - See the open air entrances in the endzones vs the main entrances at BOA

BOA Stadium

Now this doesn't address the retractable part, however it is just a similar search for a solution to a comparable stadium.

[carolinagarnet]

A retractable roof, while cool and perhaps helpful in attracting a Super Bowl, seems a little silly in Charlotte. The city gets no more than a day or two of snow every couple of years. Considering that the temperature very rarely dips below 30F, spending $200-300M for a retractable roof seems a little frivolous.

[Urbanity]

^ don't underestimate what city leaders see that $200-$300 million payoff representing if it does mean a Superbowl or NCAA games. It's not about the need for the game itself, but the ability to take advantage of a stadium refurb to add more of a selling point for the city.

All that said - I don't think we need it either, and it may not be part of the refurb at all, but it's a thought to kick around.