Last week I went to both the Seattle/Green Bay game and the Fins game against the Pats. I have been to both stadiums a few times now (my mate is a Seahawks fan). I have always disliked Sun Life and was not keen on the renovation plan.
However, I may be changing my view. Seattle's stadium is always held up as the perfect stadium and it is great, and loud. But the reality is that the fans on average are not actually closer to the action.
In Seattle, I was in row T in the main stand so there were at least 15,000 people higher than me. It is a long way up even at that height - I would say higher than the top row at Sun Life. It is true that you are close horizontally to the field, but if you worked out the average actual distance to the sideline from each seat I don't think there would be any difference. You are very far away vertically. In Seattle, it is made worse by the fact that there are so few end zone seats, which come closest to the field. Most of their seats are sideline and most are very, very high.
At Sun Life I was in the 200 level end zone and was far closer to the action then I have ever managed in Seattle.
The problem is indeed with the lower bowl sideline seats. Again, I think this is exaggerated. In any new NFL stadium (and this includes Seattle) there is a good deal of room between the sideline and the seats - they still have soccer in Seattle (so need the extra width) plus all the room used for camera trucks etc. It is much worse at Sun Life, but only by about 10 yards. Re-profiling the lower sideline seats as planned is going to pretty much eliminate this issue.
When this is done, the majority of seats at Sun Life will be closer to the field than at Seattle. The lower corner seats will not be great but there will be more end zone seats and most of the sideline seats will simply be further back but lower as opposed to closer but up in the clouds. Row T at Seattle was twice as far from the field as the 200 level end zone at Sun Life.
The reason Seattle has such a great atmosphere comes down to the fact that the stadium is 95% their own fans, they make a lot of noise and their team is great. It was crazy loud in first quarter. The roof shape certainly helps push the sound down. Must say I hate the Fieldturf and think it should be banned for outdoor stadiums.
However, I am a lot more optimistic about the Sun Life upgrade than I have been. The roof will help with the noise and the reduced capacity will help with empty seats. The lower bowl sideline and lower end zone seats will be as good as any around the league, as will the upper end zone. The corner blocks will be a bit far back but even the 400 level sideline seats compare favourably in terms of absolute distance from the field - the whole stadium is no more than 2/3 the height as the top decks in Seattle in my estimation.
Looking forward to seeing how it turns out. I would have loved a new stadium in a better location but I think the outcome might surprise us. As long as they don't waste the money on the club level which is fine as it is!
However, I may be changing my view. Seattle's stadium is always held up as the perfect stadium and it is great, and loud. But the reality is that the fans on average are not actually closer to the action.
In Seattle, I was in row T in the main stand so there were at least 15,000 people higher than me. It is a long way up even at that height - I would say higher than the top row at Sun Life. It is true that you are close horizontally to the field, but if you worked out the average actual distance to the sideline from each seat I don't think there would be any difference. You are very far away vertically. In Seattle, it is made worse by the fact that there are so few end zone seats, which come closest to the field. Most of their seats are sideline and most are very, very high.
At Sun Life I was in the 200 level end zone and was far closer to the action then I have ever managed in Seattle.
The problem is indeed with the lower bowl sideline seats. Again, I think this is exaggerated. In any new NFL stadium (and this includes Seattle) there is a good deal of room between the sideline and the seats - they still have soccer in Seattle (so need the extra width) plus all the room used for camera trucks etc. It is much worse at Sun Life, but only by about 10 yards. Re-profiling the lower sideline seats as planned is going to pretty much eliminate this issue.
When this is done, the majority of seats at Sun Life will be closer to the field than at Seattle. The lower corner seats will not be great but there will be more end zone seats and most of the sideline seats will simply be further back but lower as opposed to closer but up in the clouds. Row T at Seattle was twice as far from the field as the 200 level end zone at Sun Life.
The reason Seattle has such a great atmosphere comes down to the fact that the stadium is 95% their own fans, they make a lot of noise and their team is great. It was crazy loud in first quarter. The roof shape certainly helps push the sound down. Must say I hate the Fieldturf and think it should be banned for outdoor stadiums.
However, I am a lot more optimistic about the Sun Life upgrade than I have been. The roof will help with the noise and the reduced capacity will help with empty seats. The lower bowl sideline and lower end zone seats will be as good as any around the league, as will the upper end zone. The corner blocks will be a bit far back but even the 400 level sideline seats compare favourably in terms of absolute distance from the field - the whole stadium is no more than 2/3 the height as the top decks in Seattle in my estimation.
Looking forward to seeing how it turns out. I would have loved a new stadium in a better location but I think the outcome might surprise us. As long as they don't waste the money on the club level which is fine as it is!
