rjk*49
07-12-2007, 12:45 PM
Had the chance to visit Lincoln Financial Stadium in Philly. Hideous exterior, nice interior.
From the outside, it looks like someone ran out of funds to do anything to cover the raw industrial skeleton. Even if you appreciate structural engineering and mega-projects, this is an eyesore.
Stairs are exposed on the exterior. I suppose that provides some visual action on gameday, and you do get to see view the city and surroundings, but ramps work for me. Unfortunately, while the stairs are numerous, they're narrow, steep, and cramped, with multiple switchbacks (i.e., like walking up an old, back staircase in a 1900's house). Makes you appreciate Candlestick's ramps. I'd vote for ramps in the new stadium anyday over stairs, but that may have been a design imposition due to lack of space. Yet another consideration against downtown ballparks in crowded cities.
Inside, the appearance is much better. Clean and simple, with lots of access to each section, although the sections themselves are much wider in seating than at Candlestick (i.e., more seats per row, making for problems getting into and out of your seats if you're in the middle of a row).
The lower sections, and boxes were terrific, and seats very comfortable. But, from there on the main drawback was the incredibly steep seating on the 2nd, and 3rd tiers. Once you get to your seat, you wouldn't want to get out until post-game, especially after a couple of brewski's. If you've been to PacBell/AT&T, its much steeper than the upper tier.
The view is very good because the steepness brings you "over" or closer to the field compared to older stadiums, but if you have vertigo or a heart condition, its to be avoided. Evidently, the steepness makes for routine emergency responses for heart and respiratory-related, or equilibrium problems (walking up), and falling-related injuries as people struggle to make it out after the games (OK, beer might have something to do with most of that).
Supposedly, a group tried to propose an age limit, or seating reorganization based on health/age. Obviously, that didn't go very far, but you get the idea that the greatest number of seats in the smallest stadium footprint/area was the major overriding concern in planning, not ticket-holder comfort or convenience.
There is no parking. There wasn't enough land space available, or the city/owners couldn't afford to buy up anymore around it, or make the right deal with "interested" parties.
No private vehicles are allowed anywhere around the stadium. Only cabs and limos are allowed to approach the stadium on gameday. The only other access is a 10 block walk from the nearest public transportation. My guide basically blamed that on the unions, city-wide corruption, and organized you-know-what.
Sounds a little too like SF's proposal for public-transportation, cab and limo only access to the new Hunter's Point stadium site...
Just some thoughts relevant to the new stadium(s) discussions.
From the outside, it looks like someone ran out of funds to do anything to cover the raw industrial skeleton. Even if you appreciate structural engineering and mega-projects, this is an eyesore.
Stairs are exposed on the exterior. I suppose that provides some visual action on gameday, and you do get to see view the city and surroundings, but ramps work for me. Unfortunately, while the stairs are numerous, they're narrow, steep, and cramped, with multiple switchbacks (i.e., like walking up an old, back staircase in a 1900's house). Makes you appreciate Candlestick's ramps. I'd vote for ramps in the new stadium anyday over stairs, but that may have been a design imposition due to lack of space. Yet another consideration against downtown ballparks in crowded cities.
Inside, the appearance is much better. Clean and simple, with lots of access to each section, although the sections themselves are much wider in seating than at Candlestick (i.e., more seats per row, making for problems getting into and out of your seats if you're in the middle of a row).
The lower sections, and boxes were terrific, and seats very comfortable. But, from there on the main drawback was the incredibly steep seating on the 2nd, and 3rd tiers. Once you get to your seat, you wouldn't want to get out until post-game, especially after a couple of brewski's. If you've been to PacBell/AT&T, its much steeper than the upper tier.
The view is very good because the steepness brings you "over" or closer to the field compared to older stadiums, but if you have vertigo or a heart condition, its to be avoided. Evidently, the steepness makes for routine emergency responses for heart and respiratory-related, or equilibrium problems (walking up), and falling-related injuries as people struggle to make it out after the games (OK, beer might have something to do with most of that).
Supposedly, a group tried to propose an age limit, or seating reorganization based on health/age. Obviously, that didn't go very far, but you get the idea that the greatest number of seats in the smallest stadium footprint/area was the major overriding concern in planning, not ticket-holder comfort or convenience.
There is no parking. There wasn't enough land space available, or the city/owners couldn't afford to buy up anymore around it, or make the right deal with "interested" parties.
No private vehicles are allowed anywhere around the stadium. Only cabs and limos are allowed to approach the stadium on gameday. The only other access is a 10 block walk from the nearest public transportation. My guide basically blamed that on the unions, city-wide corruption, and organized you-know-what.
Sounds a little too like SF's proposal for public-transportation, cab and limo only access to the new Hunter's Point stadium site...
Just some thoughts relevant to the new stadium(s) discussions.