Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgKIoS6acPk[/youtube]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgKIoS6acPk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They should just change their mascot to the Potato, then their name won't make anyone mad.

GrizFanStuckInUtah wrote:They should just change their mascot to the Potato, then their name won't make anyone mad.

GrizFanStuckInUtah wrote:They should just change their mascot to the Potato, then their name won't make anyone mad.

Oh, so the Irish Potato Famine means nothing to you!?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dig ... m-complex/

CAA Flagship wrote:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dig ... m-complex/

A moat near the tailgate areas? Well at least they can do away with the porta potties now.

That thing looks like the bowl of a urinal.

a semi-transparent hyperbolic paraboloid-shaped stadium

Great idea.

89Hen wrote:

a semi-transparent hyperbolic paraboloid-shaped stadium

Great idea.

Oh come on. Anything is better than that fuck-all half-ass stadium they have now.

bandl wrote:

89Hen wrote: Great idea.

Oh come on. Anything is better than that fuck-all half-ass stadium they have now.

Yeah, better to have a full-ass stadium. Duplicating a fucked up situation is far worse IMO.

89Hen wrote:

bandl wrote: Oh come on. Anything is better than that fuck-all half-ass stadium they have now.

Yeah, better to have a full-ass stadium. Duplicating a fucked up situation is far worse IMO.

Eh, the most important part of a stadium's design is how efficiently it moves people in and out. The aesthetics of the design are largely subjective and, as we all know, you despise anything new and different.

Grizalltheway wrote:

89Hen wrote: Yeah, better to have a full-ass stadium. Duplicating a fucked up situation is far worse IMO.

Eh, the most important part of a stadium's design is how efficiently it moves people in and out. The aesthetics of the design are largely subjective and, as we all know, you despise anything new and different.

A moat doesn't help flow. The glitz certainly costs money taking it away from other areas where it could be better spent. This looks like a stupid Olympic stadium that bankrupts the country who built it. I think we're actually close to agreeing that the aesthetics are not what's important.... so why does that seem to be the main focus for this one?

The architect of the stadium is the same one that designed this building in NYC. He is from Denmark.



http://www.big.dk/#projects-w57

Will it be called "The White Sombrero?" That really does fit perfectly for the Redskins.

CAA Flagship wrote:The architect of the stadium is the same one that designed this building in NYC. He is from Denmark.



http://www.big.dk/#projects-w57

He is a faggot

Apparently this was Snyder's first choice.

89Hen wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Eh, the most important part of a stadium's design is how efficiently it moves people in and out. The aesthetics of the design are largely subjective and, as we all know, you despise anything new and different.

A moat doesn't help flow. The glitz certainly costs money taking it away from other areas where it could be better spent. This looks like a stupid Olympic stadium that bankrupts the country who built it. I think we're actually close to agreeing that the aesthetics are not what's important.... so why does that seem to be the main focus for this one?

I'm just saying, as long as you have the first part covered, the rest is up to interpretation, and a stadium shouldn't be considered a fuck up because some people don't like the appearance of it.

bandl wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote:The architect of the stadium is the same one that designed this building in NYC. He is from Denmark.



http://www.big.dk/#projects-w57

He is a faggot

What a waste of revenue generating space above the footprint.

Grizalltheway wrote:

89Hen wrote: A moat doesn't help flow. The glitz certainly costs money taking it away from other areas where it could be better spent. This looks like a stupid Olympic stadium that bankrupts the country who built it. I think we're actually close to agreeing that the aesthetics are not what's important.... so why does that seem to be the main focus for this one?

I'm just saying, as long as you have the first part covered, the rest is up to interpretation, and a stadium shouldn't be considered a fuck up because some people don't like the appearance of it.

It seems clear to me that the appearance was the driving factor of this design. The Tampa Bay sombrero design hasn't been duplicated for a reason.

89Hen wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
I'm just saying, as long as you have the first part covered, the rest is up to interpretation, and a stadium shouldn't be considered a fuck up because some people don't like the appearance of it.

It seems clear to me that the appearance was the driving factor of this design.

But what are you basing your assumption that it sacrifices function for form on?

Grizalltheway wrote:

89Hen wrote: It seems clear to me that the appearance was the driving factor of this design.

But what are you basing your assumption that it sacrifices function for form on?

My eyes.

89Hen wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
But what are you basing your assumption that it sacrifices function for form on?

My eyes.

Gotcha. From now on I'll refer all structural engineering questions to you.

Grizalltheway wrote:

89Hen wrote: My eyes.

Gotcha. From now on I'll refer all structural engineering questions to you.

I know you don't think much of my opinion but I'm stuck listening to Redskins fans on the radio every day. 9 out of 10 callers HATE it. If you knew Snyder, you'd be skeptical too.