Question on new stadium remains: Why so soon?
If you haven’t yet read Jeff Schultz’s column today about whether it would be “the worst thing in the world if the Falcons moved to the suburbs,” I recommend it. Spoiler alert: Schultz thinks it would not be the worst thing in the world if that were to happen.
Although I think downtown is ultimately far preferable to the suburbs for the Falcons’ home games, Schultz makes a number of good arguments. But this is the part to which I want to draw your attention (with emphasis added):
The [San Francisco] 49ers couldn’t get a downtown stadium deal done, so they’re moving to Santa Clara, 30 to 45 minutes away. … By the way, Candlestick Park is 53 years old.
The [New York] Giants left the old Meadowlands stadium, which was 34 years old. The [Miami] Dolphins left the Orange Bowl, which was built in 1939. The [Dallas] Cowboys and [New England] Patriots left stadiums that were opened in 1971. The [Washington] Redskins left RFK Stadium, built in 1961.
The Georgia Dome opened in 1992.
For me, much of what’s disquieting about the drive to ditch the Dome is the timing. In 2017, by which time the Falcons insist they’ll be in a new stadium, the Dome will be a mere 25 years old.
The stadium the 49ers are leaving is twice as old (53) as the Georgia Dome will be in 2017. The same goes for the Dolphins’ old stadium (48) when their new stadium opened in 1987.
The stadium the Giants and New York Jets replaced was about as old (34) as most Georgians probably believed the Dome would be when it was replaced. Ditto for the old stadiums of the Cowboys (38), Patriots (29) and Redskins (36).
I think it’s fair to assume most Atlanta residents recognize that the Dome will have to be replaced at some point in time. I think it’s also fair to assume most of us wonder why that point in time is coming so soon after the Dome was built.
Of course, the Dome will need money for repairs if it stays open. As the AJC has reported, professional estimates of those costs run from $115 million by 2020 (when the Dome would hit 28 years of age) to $401 million by approximately 2035 (when it would be 43 years old).
So, it seems questionable to most people outside the Falcons organization that the Dome has to be replaced so soon. If we having this discussion five to 10 years from now, it would be going a lot differently.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
545 comments Add your comment
md
February 17th, 2013
7:29 pm
“They care about our country and planet.”
They care about themselves and their wallets…..hence the easy choice to vote for the evil rich to pay for what they themselves would not………..
Bruno
February 17th, 2013
7:30 pm
This is the scientist I was refering to.
I doubt you’re even close to his league.
So, argue with him if you dare.
Not a problem, indigo, because your new hero is saying EXACTLY what I said on my own, except that he draws the same wrong conclusion that your other hero, benitocanadian13, did. From your link:
“You take space, get rid of all the particles, all the radiation, and it actually carries energy, and that notion that in fact empty space – once you allow gravity into the game, what seems impossible is possible. It sounds like it would violate the conservation of energy for you to start with nothing and end up with lots of stuff, but the great thing about gravity is it’s a little trickier.
Gravity allows positive energy and negative energy, and out of nothing you can create positive energy particles, and as long as a gravitational attraction produces enough negative energy, the sum of their energy can be zero. And in fact when we look out at the universe and try and measure its total energy, we come up with zero.”
This is what I said yesterday:
“The bottom line, indigo, is that Energy must always be conserved. When subatomic particles “pop into existence”, to use the phrase the yahoo author used, they can only do so in an environment that has available energy. Though we normally think of a vacuum as containing “nothing”, this isn’t true at the quantum level of existence, because there is ambient energy available. Attempting to extrapolate this localized phenomenon to a larger system, such as an entire Universe, is a logical fallacy.”
The bottom line is that Mr. Krauss is mis-characterizing a vacuum as being “nothing”, when in fact, it’s far from it, as he admits himself. All cosmological theories have to begin with “something”, even if that “something” is ambient energy in the form of gravity.
md
February 17th, 2013
7:32 pm
“He is Independent and probably voted for our President but chose the gop vouchers on health care but that debate is over.”
Might be a stretch considering the guy stated “someone has to stand up to the bullies”. Considering he doesn’t like Obamacare, I’m guessing there is a good chance you are incorrect.
md
February 17th, 2013
7:34 pm
“And there are a group of people who would like to silence everybody and have everybody go along to get along, but that’s not going to be very helpful for us in the long run,” Carson said.”
“I know a lot of doctors. I work with a lot of doctors, and I didn’t find a lot of support for it. I find a lot of people who were really quite disappointed,” he said. “It’s an expansion of the bureaucracy.”
Sorry big guy, but that doesn’t sound like a democrat voter to me…….
md
February 17th, 2013
7:46 pm
” How did you react to President Obama’s re-election?”
BC: I was actually surprised. I actually thought there were more people who perhaps were looking for a different direction and policies that would actually lead to growth, and that that’s how we get the deficit under control, as opposed to just squeezing more and more of what we have. But apparently that was not the case.”
Voted for Obama? I’m guessing no, but there is always a possibility I am wrong.
Bruno
February 17th, 2013
7:48 pm
Picking through some others of Mr. Krauss’s statements:
“In fact, the discovery of this dark energy has told us that the future will be quite different than we thought, and that’s one of the things I talk about in the book. Because of this dark energy, this energy of empty space, which is gravitationally repulsive, it’s causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate, to speed up.”
Dark energy and dark matter have not been discovered at all, which, in fact, is why they are called “dark”. Dark “matter” and “energy” only arise from the fact that large scale predictions of the behavior of our Universe using current models are so wildly wrong that the Physicists were forced to fill in the gaps with some as yet discovered matter and energy. A quick Wiki check states that supposedly 84% of the matter of the Universe is this undetectable “dark” variety, and 73% of all energy supposedly falls into this category. Call me an old cranky skeptic if you like, but any theory which can’t account for more than 3/4 of the Universe isn’t worth a lot in my book.
And:
“Well, you know, you hearken back to the statement of Steve Weinberg, which is really true. I put it a slightly different way. The universe is the way it is whether you like it or not. And you can call it whatever you want, but – and you might – and scientists might want something, and religious people might want something too. And I think the great difference and the great wonder of science is that our faith is shakable, not unshakable, that if we discover the universe isn’t the way we wanted it to be, well, too bad.”
The old false dichotomy once again. Perhaps Mr Krauss would be well-served to remember that the History of Science is littered with discarded theories. And though he’s obviously convinced that we must be converging on the truth, I don’t see it that way. Every shred of evidence points to continued revolutions in understanding, that it’s not simply a matter of filling in a few details.
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
February 17th, 2013
7:55 pm
md
I was unaware that LA had approved a stadium. Article doesn’t give a timetable for construction, sounds like it may depend on the NFL giving them an expansion team. If no team, they may forgo the stadium, but I think the NFL will do something to try and get in that media market. The lack of a suitable stadium was the reason for the 17 year absence, I’m afraid, no NFL guy wanted to go in and build him own stadium as he should have.
Bruno
February 17th, 2013
8:00 pm
And, finally, Mr Krauss reveals his own prejudices at the very end of the article. Although, I’m sure that HE doesn’t consider them to be prejudices because, after all, he’s a (drum roll)…… SCIENTIST!!!!
“Well, it turns out that we’ve been driven both from ideas from cosmology – from a theory called inflation or even string theory – that suggests there may be extra dimensions – to the possibility that our universe isn’t unique, and more over, that the laws of physics in our universe may just be accidental. They may have arisen spontaneously, and they don’t have to be the way they are. But if they were any different, we wouldn’t be here to ask the question. It’s called the entropic idea, and it’s not – it’s – it may be right.
It’s not an idea I find very attractive, but it may be right. And if it is, then it suggests that even the very laws themselves are not fundamental. They arose spontaneously in our universe, and they’re very different in other universes. And in some sense, if you wish, the multiverse plays the role of what you might call a prime mover or a god. It exists outside of our universe. And some people said, well, you know, physicists have just created this multiverse because they want to get rid of God.
Nothing could be further than – to – from the truth. The multiverse, we’ve been driven to it by our discoveries in cosmology and particle physics. We’ve been driven to that possibility, which seems plausible and maybe even likely. And if as a corollary, it allows for our universe to be spontaneously created and even the laws created, well, that’s OK, but we weren’t driven there because of some philosophical prejudice against a creator. That didn’t even enter into the discussion.”
A Multiverse, by its own definition, is undetectable. If it were detectible, then it would simply be part of our own Universe. And in case you forgot, indigo, that is the same criticism that puffed up “Scientists” accuse religious folks of: believing in things which are unprovable.
The bottom line is that we all have to start with some set of assumptions, which naturally lead us to different conclusions in life. Some of these assumptions can be reasonably discussed, others can’t, but they are always there in the background with no exceptions.
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
February 17th, 2013
8:00 pm
MarkV
Your response was the debt was not an eminent threat in that the debt/gdp had been higher. Yeah, during WWII, and if we were in a world war, maybe you could justify where it is. An Overseas contingency operation doesn’t qualify however.
The same response could be given back to you, the earth has been much warmer than it is now. The Vikings enjoyed Greenland vacations, I hear. What caused that warming back then, the paddle strokes from all those rowers?
md
February 17th, 2013
8:01 pm
What percentage is natural?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/global-warming-natural
Hmmm…….he’s a scientist, he MUST be telling the truth.
Although he backs up what I tend to “believe”, I am skeptical of his conclusions. Why, way to many unknowns…..
md
February 17th, 2013
8:04 pm
“The reason that climate models and the IPCC have not picked up on the strong influence of the sun on temperatures is because present-day climate models dismiss the variability in monthly average global temperature as climate noise, and hence ignore it. They also use the TSI that shows the lowest amount of solar irradiance since 1980.”
It’s called plugging assumed numbers into models to achieve a desired result.
Bruno
February 17th, 2013
8:06 pm
And BTW, indigo, the host of the NPR segment agrees with me as well:
“FLATOW: That’s always great. (Unintelligible). Lawrence Krauss’ new book “A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing.” You’re getting even better as a writer. I mean, my standard is George Gamow, and you come very close to him as a writer in this book. So…”
If you check back, I already referred you to Gamow’s excellent book, “Thirty Years That Shook Physics” yesterday.
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
February 17th, 2013
8:06 pm
Our President decided to act on climate change because our planet is more important than record big oil profit.
No, he is trying to control us and keep everyone pulling in the same direction to power the entitlement wagon, this is just another way. If people get too free of government, he may not have the horse power necessary to pull that wagon up a steep hill, as more and more folks keep jumping in.
Bruno
February 17th, 2013
8:07 pm
md–If you figure out why I waste my breath here on lamers like indigo and MarkV, please let me know. You’d think that they might try thinking for themselves once in a while.
md
February 17th, 2013
8:15 pm
” Article doesn’t give a timetable for construction, sounds like it may depend on the NFL giving them an expansion team. If no team, they may forgo the stadium, but I think the NFL will do something to try and get in that media market.”
Rafe, I’ve follwed the stories on the LA situation for awhile. I do believe they have competing groups trying to build stadiums as well and neither has found an owner willing to commit to their terms as they want to own the stadium and do the dictating. Owners don’t much like being dicatted to, they tend to believe that is their role.
LA has also had their sights set on any current franchise that might want to play the game, with Jacksonville being the most mentioned team. Since it is a business, I could see some team decide the terms are more favorable to head to LA…….after all they moved to Indy, AZ, and Stl…..I would think the #2 market would be a prize compared to those places.
Bruno
February 17th, 2013
8:15 pm
I’m all for theorizing, but you would think that more of these cats would simply admit the obvious “We don’t really know definitively, but here’s our latest guess”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBsdHoTdOmc
getalife
February 17th, 2013
8:15 pm
You’d think cons would get something right one day but they learn what to think from uncredible rw media so that day is far away.
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
February 17th, 2013
8:16 pm
Bruno
If they start questioning GW, then they might question Benghazi, fast/furious, socialistic inclination, individual responsibility, etc and wind up having to give up the easy way of just leaving things to the experts in government, science, physics, etc.
Funny they never agree with military experts, wonder why? Guess the military experts don’t get together and come to a military consensus. You never hear that 97% of military experts predict that….
Hillbilly D
February 17th, 2013
8:18 pm
uncredible rw media
Other than that they sit at opposite sides of the fence, what’s the difference between MSNBC, et al and Fox News, et al? They’re all just entertainment masquerading as news.
md
February 17th, 2013
8:18 pm
“md–If you figure out why I waste my breath here on lamers like indigo and MarkV, please let me know. You’d think that they might try thinking for themselves once in a while.”
Maybe because there is always hope they may see the light?
indigo
February 17th, 2013
8:23 pm
Bruno
In order to completely argue “something from nothing” in Quantum Mechanics, you must go beyone mere words. It would take pages of very complex mathmematical physics equations. Naturally, this requires a strong background in Algebra, Geometry, Trigonometry and Calculus.
I don’t begin to have this background and I strongly doubt you do either.
But, I’m willing to take the word of a top scientist like Dr. Krauss.
Somewhere along the line, you’ve come to the conclusion that we should only post things here that we personally have certain knowledge of and can prove. If top scientists say something and we repeat it here, you summarily dismiss it if we can’t prove it ourselves.
I don’t really understand why you have such an attitude.
I freely admit I’m no mathematican.
Bruno
February 17th, 2013
8:23 pm
Cheap Day Return/Wond’ring Aloud:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpkRdoXxs20
getalife
February 17th, 2013
8:25 pm
The consensus among scientists is what our President will act upon.
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
February 17th, 2013
8:27 pm
Maybe because there is always hope they may see the light?
Then again, there is always hope Obama will advocate policies to improve the economy, also. Just about the same amount of hope as involved above.
Dusty
February 17th, 2013
8:28 pm
Josef
Just got back..
I hope you are still here. I was wondering if you had read “Dear EllenBee”, a Civil War scrapbook of two union spies. by M. E. Lyons and M. M. Branch. I thought about your book on Civil War times involving a woman. Anyway, this book was listed in the children’s division but I chose it because of its title. Have you read it?. Did you like it?
Bruno
February 17th, 2013
8:29 pm
Naturally, this requires a strong background in Algebra, Geometry, Trigonometry and Calculus. I don’t begin to have this background and I strongly doubt you do either.
Well, you’re wrong. I do have the background.
But, I’m willing to take the word of a top scientist like Dr. Krauss.
Somewhere along the line, you’ve come to the conclusion that we should only post things here that we personally have certain knowledge of and can prove. If top scientists say something and we repeat it here, you summarily dismiss it if we can’t prove it ourselves.
I’ve never challenged you to discuss the nuances of any of the equations, but I would think that you have enough reading comprehension skills to understand why Mr. Krauss’s claim of “Something from nothing” is contradicted by his own words. And, as stated above, merely repeating the words of others with absolutely no analysis at all reduces you to the role of a parrot. I can only hope that you would wish better for yourself.
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
February 17th, 2013
8:32 pm
getalife
The consensus among scientists is what our President will act upon.
So, he believes in experts that believe the same way he does! The experts who disagree with his imminence are just wrong, right?
If not, why did he ignore the consensus of military experts on keeping troops in Iraq or delay the surge in Afghanistan?
Dusty
February 17th, 2013
8:32 pm
Josef
I have read it . Just wanted your opiniion.
Bruno
February 17th, 2013
8:32 pm
Some wicked Tull:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNRmavbTTQk
md
February 17th, 2013
8:32 pm
“You’d think cons would get something right one day but they learn what to think from uncredible rw media so that day is far away.”
Not sure how you do it, but when I listen to the news, the first thing I do is google it and follow the trail. One should be asking themselves constantly if they are correct in their own beliefs, and doing the research accordingly.
I like to try to prove myself wrong on a subject by digging for research and either strengthening or weakening my own stance. If I read enough credible information on a subject that logically tells me I’m wrong, I have no problem telling myself that.
As an example, I was raised in a religious household, rebelled strongly against to the point I was one of these hate religion at all cost kind of guys and have come around to understand that I just don’t know, and right now have no way of knowing.
Life is a journey, which also explains why I was once a card carrying democrat, switched to a card carrying republican and am now a right leaning independent.
I have no problem admitting I used to be one of those with no morals voting for the other guy to do it based on the fact that I didn’t have anything and felt they could afford it just because……..
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
February 17th, 2013
8:33 pm
“md–If you figure out why I waste my breath here on lamers like indigo and MarkV, please let me know. You’d think that they might try thinking for themselves once in a while.”
Bruno – It looks like you do have some Con in you. We actually do try to help the weak and the lame instead of just making a bunch of empty promises to them and then using the money we extort from others to fund our mindless pet projects and grow our power. There is a special place in Heaven for those who have forsaken liberalism in favor of decency, although you may want to stop with the over analyzing of this Gift.
getalife
February 17th, 2013
8:34 pm
“Then again, there is always hope Obama will advocate policies to improve the economy, also”
He did while your party is focused on cuts to kill jobs job killer.
getalife
February 17th, 2013
8:35 pm
“There is a special place in Heaven”
Not for you.
getalife
February 17th, 2013
8:36 pm
md,
rw media is not credible. Period.
Hillbilly D
February 17th, 2013
8:36 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_DV54ddNHE
getalife
February 17th, 2013
8:38 pm
“why did he ignore the consensus of military experts on keeping troops in Iraq or delay the surge in Afghanistan?”
Because we lost in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan stupid.
Hillbilly D
February 17th, 2013
8:40 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU5LoCLGMdQ
Bruno
February 17th, 2013
8:40 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YymGJKhGgY
md
February 17th, 2013
8:40 pm
“rw media is not credible. Period.”
And there in lies the problem…..if one is unwilling to do the necessary research to verify whether something is true then one will forever be in the dark.
But from what you post on a regular basis I’m guessing you are comfortable being in the dark….
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
February 17th, 2013
8:43 pm
I like to try to prove myself wrong on a subject by digging for research and either strengthening or weakening my own stance.
I tend to agree. Drudge used to be a pretty reliable source of information and still is the go to, but ever since the death of Breitbart, they slant a bit too far to the unbelievable.They try to make hay where there is none.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
February 17th, 2013
8:43 pm
The consensus among economists is that we have a spending problem.
Act on THAT, Obozo.
getalife
February 17th, 2013
8:44 pm
md,
When was the last time you turned out to be right?
I will put up my record up to any con.
getalife
February 17th, 2013
8:46 pm
BTW, you should research who funds your military experts and scientists to find out it is defense companies and big oil.
That ruins credibility in the real world.
Bruno
February 17th, 2013
8:47 pm
Back at your 8:40:
http://vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8
getalife
February 17th, 2013
8:47 pm
“Act on THAT, Obozo.”
The 4 trillion bargain is on the table.
Act gop.
getalife
February 17th, 2013
8:51 pm
“They try to make hay where there is none.”
Like the Mendedez smear.
bretbart was never credible.
getalife
February 17th, 2013
8:55 pm
You are getting closer to joining the real world but not there yet.
I switched from Independent to Democrat because they stopped your party from robbing SS and Medicare.
I am not a self defeatist like you.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
February 17th, 2013
8:56 pm
Menendez is a slam dunk. The FBI is a tool of the dummycrats and even they couldn’t overlook his “indiscretions.” The dummycrats are bust scheming how to replace him with another pinko but they don’t trust christie. That’s the only reason he ain’t gone by now.
getalife
February 17th, 2013
8:58 pm
Prostitutes are not credible silly.
You bought their lie didn’t you.
getalife
February 17th, 2013
9:00 pm
I thought Kyle banned you.