looks like most people are getting wet, at least I stayed dry in the old stadium set up.
looks like most people are getting wet, at least I stayed dry in the old stadium set up.
Toughen up, Buttercup.
The new Hayward is beautiful, has better sightlines, comfortable seats, food service, and enough bathrooms that you don't miss half of the meet standing in line to use the antiquated old pissers. Bring a poncho and a hat if you are afraid of the rain.
only time will tell if people stay away or flock to the new duds
Not better sight lines with those plexi glass barriers. One thing a stadium in Oregon needs is a cover to stop the rain. It’s not about being tough. It’s about making fans comforts so they watch our dying sport instead of watching on livestream. Very nice stadium but it’s not the same and not in a good way. I was in awe when I first saw it. I’m unimpressed and don’t feel it was an upgrade after watching one day of track and field there.
LRC note. The poster isn't in Eugene. They are posting from California.
The stadium is amazing and roughly half of the total number of seats is under the roofline as witnessed here. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/589a191717bffcd95a0a932d/t/60bbd5dde71aed145aef780d/1622922721852/2020+Olympic+Team+Trials+Stadium+Seat+Map+2021-06-05.pdf
Sorry, but the new stadium looks worse from the homestretch view than the old one did. Looks nothing like I'd expect for the money sunk into it.
Since you don't believe me, just watch what construction is suddenly going on after the trials, when the make that area look less like a rural high school in Iowa.
Sorry but I am most definitely in Eugene.
Maybe some of the fans that don't like getting wet should consider watching the NCAA indoor championships instead. I have heard they have a roof and climate control.
What I dont get is why the designers made a longer roof to cover more seats. In the total cost it should not make that much difference.
Waterloo1815kgl wrote:
looks like most people are getting wet, at least I stayed dry in the old stadium set up.
Look, I will be the first to say that ripping out the historic stadium was the worst idea ever. Another location should have been used (where there is more parking) and kept Hayward in place.
But really, if you are complaining about rain in Oregon... That’s just ridiculous. It rarely every pours rain during the months of the year outdoor meets are held. It was sprinkling here last night. And not for that long. I grew up starting outdoor season in the snow in the Midwest. It’s rain. Eugene fans will always come out. Rain or shine.
The old Hayward Field was definitely historic and I hated to see it come down, but it's time had come and gone IMHO. I'm curious if those longing for the past, ever attended a Trials at max capacity? It really wasn't that comfortable. Wooden bench seats with very little room to your side or front and back. I'm very much looking forwarding to seeing the new stadium in person next week.
Stanhope wrote:
What I dont get is why the designers made a longer roof to cover more seats. In the total cost it should not make that much difference.
You mean why they didn't make a longer roof? As in extend it out over more seats? I would think it would be a major bump up in cost, but am in agreement that it would have made the stadium more fan friendly. The 2 meets I've seen from there (remotely), have already experienced downpours. That depiction of the stadium with the roofline traced out is a bit deceptive. It may provide protection for those last 10 rows way up top but not much else. And if the wind's blowing a bit, even those well under that roof will get wet as it's a good distance above. And whoever is saying the sightlines are better, not sure thats possible, with the exception of a few sections in the old stadium.
geegee wrote:
Not better sight lines with those plexi glass barriers. One thing a stadium in Oregon needs is a cover to stop the rain. It’s not about being tough. It’s about making fans comforts so they watch our dying sport instead of watching on livestream. Very nice stadium but it’s not the same and not in a good way. I was in awe when I first saw it. I’m unimpressed and don’t feel it was an upgrade after watching one day of track and field there.
LRC note. The poster isn't in Eugene. They are posting from California.
kmaclam note. This moderator has picked a most innocuous post to supposed fact check?!
Stanhope wrote:
What I dont get is why the designers made a longer roof to cover more seats. In the total cost it should not make that much difference.
Obviously you have not payed any bills yet.
Of course it makes a huge difference in costs. Otherwise they just would have done a bigger roof.